Criteria or specific requirement: 2 CFR 200.302(b)(3) indicates that records that adequately identify the source and application of funds for federally funded activities are necessary. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income, and interest and be supported by source documentation. Condition: Expenditures originally reported on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards for the year ended December 31, 2021 were understated. In the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, $1,389,172 of prior year expenditures associated with the Medicaid Cluster were included in the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Questioned costs: None Context: Expenditures reported on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards for Assistance Listing Number 93.778 were understated by $ 1,389,172. Cause: Pueblo County?s SEFA reconciliation process inadvertently missed the complete population of expenditures. Effect: Expenditures reported on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards were understated for the year ended December 31, 2021. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: CLA recommends the County implement tracking procedures to ensure all federal expenditures are reported on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: 2 CFR 200.302(b)(3) indicates that records that adequately identify the source and application of funds for federally funded activities are necessary. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income, and interest and be supported by source documentation. Condition: Expenditures originally reported on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards for the year ended December 31, 2021 were understated. In the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, $1,389,172 of prior year expenditures associated with the Medicaid Cluster were included in the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Questioned costs: None Context: Expenditures reported on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards for Assistance Listing Number 93.778 were understated by $ 1,389,172. Cause: Pueblo County?s SEFA reconciliation process inadvertently missed the complete population of expenditures. Effect: Expenditures reported on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards were understated for the year ended December 31, 2021. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: CLA recommends the County implement tracking procedures to ensure all federal expenditures are reported on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: Non-federal entities other than states, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of states, must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. This procurement process must be documented with proper supporting documentation. Condition: The County did not have proper procurement documentation available for the contracts tested in the audit. Questioned costs: None Context: Five of the five contracts tested did not have the proper supporting documentation to demonstrate that procurement procedures were followed in accordance with the County?s procurement policy. Cause: The contracts were in process before the funding was assigned to the projects and there was turnover at the County. Effect: Failure to document the procurement process exposes the County to the risk that the County?s procurement policy was not followed before the contracts were awarded. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: CLA recommends the County follow their internal procurement policy procedures and keep documentation of such procedures to ensure compliance with the federal procurement requirements. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.331(a) states that all pass-through entities must ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes, federal award identification, subrecipient name, subrecipient?s DUNS number, federal award identification number (FAIN), federal award date, subaward start and end date, amount of federal funds obligated, total amount of federal award, federal award project description, name of federal awarding agency, Assistance Listing (CFDA) number and name, identification of whether the award is R&D and indirect cost rate for federal award. Per 2 CFR 200.303, requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Effective internal control should include procedures to ensure required information is communicated prior to the issuance of the subaward. Per 2 CFR 200.331(a)(1), pass-through entities must evaluate each subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance to determine the appropriate level of monitoring of the subrecipient. Per 2 CFR 200.332(d) through (f), pass-through entities must monitor the activities of the subrecipient, which includes reviewing financial reports required by the pass-through entity. Condition: During our testing, we noted subrecipients tested had required information omitted from the sub agreements to the subrecipients including Assistance Listing (CFDA) title and number, subrecipient?s DUNS number, Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN), identification of whether the award is research and development, and indirect cost rate for federal award. Subrecipients tested did not have evidence of the County?s evaluation of the risk of noncompliance by the subrecipients, nor was there evidence of monitoring of annual audits for the subrecipients. Internal checklists that aid in compliance were missing for certain subrecipients. A subrecipient was provided the funding at the beginning of the grant award period and no required quarterly reports were submitted to the County subsequent to funding. Questioned costs: None. Context: Five out of the five subrecipients did not include required information in subaward agreements issued to subrecipients and lacked evidence of both the evaluation of risk of noncompliance of the subrecipient and monitoring of annual audits for the subrecipients. Two of the five subrecipients were missing an internal checklist that is signed by the County Manager. One of the five subrecipients was provided the funding at the beginning of the grant award period and no required quarterly reports were submitted to the County subsequent to funding. Cause: Lack of sufficient controls in place to ensure that subrecipient agreements contain all required information and are monitored appropriately. Effect: Failure to communicate required information and to adequately monitor the subrecipients could result in subrecipients not properly administering the federal programs in accordance with federal regulations. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the County review its procedures for communicating information to subrecipients and implement the procedures necessary to ensure information is included in the subrecipient award documents at time of funding and that appropriate monitoring is performed for each subrecipient. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303, requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Effective internal controls should include procedures in place to ensure the required certifications for covered contracts and subawards are received, documented, and contracts are not made with a debarred or suspended party. Condition: During our testing of five covered transactions (three vendors and two subawards), we noted all three vendors did not have proper supporting documentation for suspension and debarment procedures for vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: Three of the five covered transaction tested did not have proper supporting documentation for suspension and debarment procedures. Cause: One of the vendors was added as a contractor and two of the vendors were added as subcontractors in an amendment with an existing contractor. Since this was an amendment made subsequent to the original procurement activity, these vendors were overlooked for suspension and debarment procedures. Effect: Failure to obtain the required certifications or perform verification procedures with the SAM could result in the payment of federal funds to vendors that are suspended or debarred from participation in federal assistance programs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the County obtain certifications from vendors stating their organization is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from participation in federal assistance programs or document the procedures performed to verify the vendor is not identified as suspended or debarred on SAM. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: Non-federal entities other than states, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of states, must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. This procurement process must be documented with proper supporting documentation. Condition: The County did not have proper procurement documentation available for the contracts tested in the audit. Questioned costs: None Context: Five of the five contracts tested did not have the proper supporting documentation to demonstrate that procurement procedures were followed in accordance with the County?s procurement policy. Cause: The contracts were in process before the funding was assigned to the projects and there was turnover at the County. Effect: Failure to document the procurement process exposes the County to the risk that the County?s procurement policy was not followed before the contracts were awarded. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: CLA recommends the County follow their internal procurement policy procedures and keep documentation of such procedures to ensure compliance with the federal procurement requirements. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.331(a) states that all pass-through entities must ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes, federal award identification, subrecipient name, subrecipient?s DUNS number, federal award identification number (FAIN), federal award date, subaward start and end date, amount of federal funds obligated, total amount of federal award, federal award project description, name of federal awarding agency, Assistance Listing (CFDA) number and name, identification of whether the award is R&D and indirect cost rate for federal award. Per 2 CFR 200.303, requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Effective internal control should include procedures to ensure required information is communicated prior to the issuance of the subaward. Per 2 CFR 200.331(a)(1), pass-through entities must evaluate each subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance to determine the appropriate level of monitoring of the subrecipient. Per 2 CFR 200.332(d) through (f), pass-through entities must monitor the activities of the subrecipient, which includes reviewing financial reports required by the pass-through entity. Condition: During our testing, we noted subrecipients tested had required information omitted from the sub agreements to the subrecipients including Assistance Listing (CFDA) title and number, subrecipient?s DUNS number, Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN), identification of whether the award is research and development, and indirect cost rate for federal award. Subrecipients tested did not have evidence of the County?s evaluation of the risk of noncompliance by the subrecipients, nor was there evidence of monitoring of annual audits for the subrecipients. Internal checklists that aid in compliance were missing for certain subrecipients. A subrecipient was provided the funding at the beginning of the grant award period and no required quarterly reports were submitted to the County subsequent to funding. Questioned costs: None. Context: Five out of the five subrecipients did not include required information in subaward agreements issued to subrecipients and lacked evidence of both the evaluation of risk of noncompliance of the subrecipient and monitoring of annual audits for the subrecipients. Two of the five subrecipients were missing an internal checklist that is signed by the County Manager. One of the five subrecipients was provided the funding at the beginning of the grant award period and no required quarterly reports were submitted to the County subsequent to funding. Cause: Lack of sufficient controls in place to ensure that subrecipient agreements contain all required information and are monitored appropriately. Effect: Failure to communicate required information and to adequately monitor the subrecipients could result in subrecipients not properly administering the federal programs in accordance with federal regulations. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the County review its procedures for communicating information to subrecipients and implement the procedures necessary to ensure information is included in the subrecipient award documents at time of funding and that appropriate monitoring is performed for each subrecipient. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303, requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Effective internal controls should include procedures in place to ensure the required certifications for covered contracts and subawards are received, documented, and contracts are not made with a debarred or suspended party. Condition: During our testing of five covered transactions (three vendors and two subawards), we noted all three vendors did not have proper supporting documentation for suspension and debarment procedures for vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: Three of the five covered transaction tested did not have proper supporting documentation for suspension and debarment procedures. Cause: One of the vendors was added as a contractor and two of the vendors were added as subcontractors in an amendment with an existing contractor. Since this was an amendment made subsequent to the original procurement activity, these vendors were overlooked for suspension and debarment procedures. Effect: Failure to obtain the required certifications or perform verification procedures with the SAM could result in the payment of federal funds to vendors that are suspended or debarred from participation in federal assistance programs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the County obtain certifications from vendors stating their organization is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from participation in federal assistance programs or document the procedures performed to verify the vendor is not identified as suspended or debarred on SAM. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: Non-federal entities other than states, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of states, must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. This procurement process must be documented with proper supporting documentation. Condition: The County did not have proper procurement documentation available for the contracts tested in the audit. Questioned costs: None Context: Five of the five contracts tested did not have the proper supporting documentation to demonstrate that procurement procedures were followed in accordance with the County?s procurement policy. Cause: The contracts were in process before the funding was assigned to the projects and there was turnover at the County. Effect: Failure to document the procurement process exposes the County to the risk that the County?s procurement policy was not followed before the contracts were awarded. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: CLA recommends the County follow their internal procurement policy procedures and keep documentation of such procedures to ensure compliance with the federal procurement requirements. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.331(a) states that all pass-through entities must ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes, federal award identification, subrecipient name, subrecipient?s DUNS number, federal award identification number (FAIN), federal award date, subaward start and end date, amount of federal funds obligated, total amount of federal award, federal award project description, name of federal awarding agency, Assistance Listing (CFDA) number and name, identification of whether the award is R&D and indirect cost rate for federal award. Per 2 CFR 200.303, requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Effective internal control should include procedures to ensure required information is communicated prior to the issuance of the subaward. Per 2 CFR 200.331(a)(1), pass-through entities must evaluate each subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance to determine the appropriate level of monitoring of the subrecipient. Per 2 CFR 200.332(d) through (f), pass-through entities must monitor the activities of the subrecipient, which includes reviewing financial reports required by the pass-through entity. Condition: During our testing, we noted subrecipients tested had required information omitted from the sub agreements to the subrecipients including Assistance Listing (CFDA) title and number, subrecipient?s DUNS number, Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN), identification of whether the award is research and development, and indirect cost rate for federal award. Subrecipients tested did not have evidence of the County?s evaluation of the risk of noncompliance by the subrecipients, nor was there evidence of monitoring of annual audits for the subrecipients. Internal checklists that aid in compliance were missing for certain subrecipients. A subrecipient was provided the funding at the beginning of the grant award period and no required quarterly reports were submitted to the County subsequent to funding. Questioned costs: None. Context: Five out of the five subrecipients did not include required information in subaward agreements issued to subrecipients and lacked evidence of both the evaluation of risk of noncompliance of the subrecipient and monitoring of annual audits for the subrecipients. Two of the five subrecipients were missing an internal checklist that is signed by the County Manager. One of the five subrecipients was provided the funding at the beginning of the grant award period and no required quarterly reports were submitted to the County subsequent to funding. Cause: Lack of sufficient controls in place to ensure that subrecipient agreements contain all required information and are monitored appropriately. Effect: Failure to communicate required information and to adequately monitor the subrecipients could result in subrecipients not properly administering the federal programs in accordance with federal regulations. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the County review its procedures for communicating information to subrecipients and implement the procedures necessary to ensure information is included in the subrecipient award documents at time of funding and that appropriate monitoring is performed for each subrecipient. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303, requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Effective internal controls should include procedures in place to ensure the required certifications for covered contracts and subawards are received, documented, and contracts are not made with a debarred or suspended party. Condition: During our testing of five covered transactions (three vendors and two subawards), we noted all three vendors did not have proper supporting documentation for suspension and debarment procedures for vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: Three of the five covered transaction tested did not have proper supporting documentation for suspension and debarment procedures. Cause: One of the vendors was added as a contractor and two of the vendors were added as subcontractors in an amendment with an existing contractor. Since this was an amendment made subsequent to the original procurement activity, these vendors were overlooked for suspension and debarment procedures. Effect: Failure to obtain the required certifications or perform verification procedures with the SAM could result in the payment of federal funds to vendors that are suspended or debarred from participation in federal assistance programs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the County obtain certifications from vendors stating their organization is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from participation in federal assistance programs or document the procedures performed to verify the vendor is not identified as suspended or debarred on SAM. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: 2 CFR 200.302(b)(3) indicates that records that adequately identify the source and application of funds for federally funded activities are necessary. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income, and interest and be supported by source documentation. Condition: Expenditures originally reported on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards for the year ended December 31, 2021 were understated. In the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, $1,389,172 of prior year expenditures associated with the Medicaid Cluster were included in the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Questioned costs: None Context: Expenditures reported on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards for Assistance Listing Number 93.778 were understated by $ 1,389,172. Cause: Pueblo County?s SEFA reconciliation process inadvertently missed the complete population of expenditures. Effect: Expenditures reported on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards were understated for the year ended December 31, 2021. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: CLA recommends the County implement tracking procedures to ensure all federal expenditures are reported on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: 2 CFR 200.302(b)(3) indicates that records that adequately identify the source and application of funds for federally funded activities are necessary. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income, and interest and be supported by source documentation. Condition: Expenditures originally reported on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards for the year ended December 31, 2021 were understated. In the fiscal year ended December 31, 2022, $1,389,172 of prior year expenditures associated with the Medicaid Cluster were included in the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Questioned costs: None Context: Expenditures reported on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards for Assistance Listing Number 93.778 were understated by $ 1,389,172. Cause: Pueblo County?s SEFA reconciliation process inadvertently missed the complete population of expenditures. Effect: Expenditures reported on Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards were understated for the year ended December 31, 2021. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: CLA recommends the County implement tracking procedures to ensure all federal expenditures are reported on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: Non-federal entities other than states, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of states, must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. This procurement process must be documented with proper supporting documentation. Condition: The County did not have proper procurement documentation available for the contracts tested in the audit. Questioned costs: None Context: Five of the five contracts tested did not have the proper supporting documentation to demonstrate that procurement procedures were followed in accordance with the County?s procurement policy. Cause: The contracts were in process before the funding was assigned to the projects and there was turnover at the County. Effect: Failure to document the procurement process exposes the County to the risk that the County?s procurement policy was not followed before the contracts were awarded. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: CLA recommends the County follow their internal procurement policy procedures and keep documentation of such procedures to ensure compliance with the federal procurement requirements. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.331(a) states that all pass-through entities must ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes, federal award identification, subrecipient name, subrecipient?s DUNS number, federal award identification number (FAIN), federal award date, subaward start and end date, amount of federal funds obligated, total amount of federal award, federal award project description, name of federal awarding agency, Assistance Listing (CFDA) number and name, identification of whether the award is R&D and indirect cost rate for federal award. Per 2 CFR 200.303, requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Effective internal control should include procedures to ensure required information is communicated prior to the issuance of the subaward. Per 2 CFR 200.331(a)(1), pass-through entities must evaluate each subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance to determine the appropriate level of monitoring of the subrecipient. Per 2 CFR 200.332(d) through (f), pass-through entities must monitor the activities of the subrecipient, which includes reviewing financial reports required by the pass-through entity. Condition: During our testing, we noted subrecipients tested had required information omitted from the sub agreements to the subrecipients including Assistance Listing (CFDA) title and number, subrecipient?s DUNS number, Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN), identification of whether the award is research and development, and indirect cost rate for federal award. Subrecipients tested did not have evidence of the County?s evaluation of the risk of noncompliance by the subrecipients, nor was there evidence of monitoring of annual audits for the subrecipients. Internal checklists that aid in compliance were missing for certain subrecipients. A subrecipient was provided the funding at the beginning of the grant award period and no required quarterly reports were submitted to the County subsequent to funding. Questioned costs: None. Context: Five out of the five subrecipients did not include required information in subaward agreements issued to subrecipients and lacked evidence of both the evaluation of risk of noncompliance of the subrecipient and monitoring of annual audits for the subrecipients. Two of the five subrecipients were missing an internal checklist that is signed by the County Manager. One of the five subrecipients was provided the funding at the beginning of the grant award period and no required quarterly reports were submitted to the County subsequent to funding. Cause: Lack of sufficient controls in place to ensure that subrecipient agreements contain all required information and are monitored appropriately. Effect: Failure to communicate required information and to adequately monitor the subrecipients could result in subrecipients not properly administering the federal programs in accordance with federal regulations. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the County review its procedures for communicating information to subrecipients and implement the procedures necessary to ensure information is included in the subrecipient award documents at time of funding and that appropriate monitoring is performed for each subrecipient. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303, requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Effective internal controls should include procedures in place to ensure the required certifications for covered contracts and subawards are received, documented, and contracts are not made with a debarred or suspended party. Condition: During our testing of five covered transactions (three vendors and two subawards), we noted all three vendors did not have proper supporting documentation for suspension and debarment procedures for vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: Three of the five covered transaction tested did not have proper supporting documentation for suspension and debarment procedures. Cause: One of the vendors was added as a contractor and two of the vendors were added as subcontractors in an amendment with an existing contractor. Since this was an amendment made subsequent to the original procurement activity, these vendors were overlooked for suspension and debarment procedures. Effect: Failure to obtain the required certifications or perform verification procedures with the SAM could result in the payment of federal funds to vendors that are suspended or debarred from participation in federal assistance programs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the County obtain certifications from vendors stating their organization is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from participation in federal assistance programs or document the procedures performed to verify the vendor is not identified as suspended or debarred on SAM. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: Non-federal entities other than states, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of states, must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. This procurement process must be documented with proper supporting documentation. Condition: The County did not have proper procurement documentation available for the contracts tested in the audit. Questioned costs: None Context: Five of the five contracts tested did not have the proper supporting documentation to demonstrate that procurement procedures were followed in accordance with the County?s procurement policy. Cause: The contracts were in process before the funding was assigned to the projects and there was turnover at the County. Effect: Failure to document the procurement process exposes the County to the risk that the County?s procurement policy was not followed before the contracts were awarded. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: CLA recommends the County follow their internal procurement policy procedures and keep documentation of such procedures to ensure compliance with the federal procurement requirements. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.331(a) states that all pass-through entities must ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes, federal award identification, subrecipient name, subrecipient?s DUNS number, federal award identification number (FAIN), federal award date, subaward start and end date, amount of federal funds obligated, total amount of federal award, federal award project description, name of federal awarding agency, Assistance Listing (CFDA) number and name, identification of whether the award is R&D and indirect cost rate for federal award. Per 2 CFR 200.303, requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Effective internal control should include procedures to ensure required information is communicated prior to the issuance of the subaward. Per 2 CFR 200.331(a)(1), pass-through entities must evaluate each subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance to determine the appropriate level of monitoring of the subrecipient. Per 2 CFR 200.332(d) through (f), pass-through entities must monitor the activities of the subrecipient, which includes reviewing financial reports required by the pass-through entity. Condition: During our testing, we noted subrecipients tested had required information omitted from the sub agreements to the subrecipients including Assistance Listing (CFDA) title and number, subrecipient?s DUNS number, Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN), identification of whether the award is research and development, and indirect cost rate for federal award. Subrecipients tested did not have evidence of the County?s evaluation of the risk of noncompliance by the subrecipients, nor was there evidence of monitoring of annual audits for the subrecipients. Internal checklists that aid in compliance were missing for certain subrecipients. A subrecipient was provided the funding at the beginning of the grant award period and no required quarterly reports were submitted to the County subsequent to funding. Questioned costs: None. Context: Five out of the five subrecipients did not include required information in subaward agreements issued to subrecipients and lacked evidence of both the evaluation of risk of noncompliance of the subrecipient and monitoring of annual audits for the subrecipients. Two of the five subrecipients were missing an internal checklist that is signed by the County Manager. One of the five subrecipients was provided the funding at the beginning of the grant award period and no required quarterly reports were submitted to the County subsequent to funding. Cause: Lack of sufficient controls in place to ensure that subrecipient agreements contain all required information and are monitored appropriately. Effect: Failure to communicate required information and to adequately monitor the subrecipients could result in subrecipients not properly administering the federal programs in accordance with federal regulations. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the County review its procedures for communicating information to subrecipients and implement the procedures necessary to ensure information is included in the subrecipient award documents at time of funding and that appropriate monitoring is performed for each subrecipient. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303, requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Effective internal controls should include procedures in place to ensure the required certifications for covered contracts and subawards are received, documented, and contracts are not made with a debarred or suspended party. Condition: During our testing of five covered transactions (three vendors and two subawards), we noted all three vendors did not have proper supporting documentation for suspension and debarment procedures for vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: Three of the five covered transaction tested did not have proper supporting documentation for suspension and debarment procedures. Cause: One of the vendors was added as a contractor and two of the vendors were added as subcontractors in an amendment with an existing contractor. Since this was an amendment made subsequent to the original procurement activity, these vendors were overlooked for suspension and debarment procedures. Effect: Failure to obtain the required certifications or perform verification procedures with the SAM could result in the payment of federal funds to vendors that are suspended or debarred from participation in federal assistance programs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the County obtain certifications from vendors stating their organization is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from participation in federal assistance programs or document the procedures performed to verify the vendor is not identified as suspended or debarred on SAM. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: Non-federal entities other than states, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of states, must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. This procurement process must be documented with proper supporting documentation. Condition: The County did not have proper procurement documentation available for the contracts tested in the audit. Questioned costs: None Context: Five of the five contracts tested did not have the proper supporting documentation to demonstrate that procurement procedures were followed in accordance with the County?s procurement policy. Cause: The contracts were in process before the funding was assigned to the projects and there was turnover at the County. Effect: Failure to document the procurement process exposes the County to the risk that the County?s procurement policy was not followed before the contracts were awarded. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: CLA recommends the County follow their internal procurement policy procedures and keep documentation of such procedures to ensure compliance with the federal procurement requirements. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.331(a) states that all pass-through entities must ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes, federal award identification, subrecipient name, subrecipient?s DUNS number, federal award identification number (FAIN), federal award date, subaward start and end date, amount of federal funds obligated, total amount of federal award, federal award project description, name of federal awarding agency, Assistance Listing (CFDA) number and name, identification of whether the award is R&D and indirect cost rate for federal award. Per 2 CFR 200.303, requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Effective internal control should include procedures to ensure required information is communicated prior to the issuance of the subaward. Per 2 CFR 200.331(a)(1), pass-through entities must evaluate each subrecipient?s risk of noncompliance to determine the appropriate level of monitoring of the subrecipient. Per 2 CFR 200.332(d) through (f), pass-through entities must monitor the activities of the subrecipient, which includes reviewing financial reports required by the pass-through entity. Condition: During our testing, we noted subrecipients tested had required information omitted from the sub agreements to the subrecipients including Assistance Listing (CFDA) title and number, subrecipient?s DUNS number, Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN), identification of whether the award is research and development, and indirect cost rate for federal award. Subrecipients tested did not have evidence of the County?s evaluation of the risk of noncompliance by the subrecipients, nor was there evidence of monitoring of annual audits for the subrecipients. Internal checklists that aid in compliance were missing for certain subrecipients. A subrecipient was provided the funding at the beginning of the grant award period and no required quarterly reports were submitted to the County subsequent to funding. Questioned costs: None. Context: Five out of the five subrecipients did not include required information in subaward agreements issued to subrecipients and lacked evidence of both the evaluation of risk of noncompliance of the subrecipient and monitoring of annual audits for the subrecipients. Two of the five subrecipients were missing an internal checklist that is signed by the County Manager. One of the five subrecipients was provided the funding at the beginning of the grant award period and no required quarterly reports were submitted to the County subsequent to funding. Cause: Lack of sufficient controls in place to ensure that subrecipient agreements contain all required information and are monitored appropriately. Effect: Failure to communicate required information and to adequately monitor the subrecipients could result in subrecipients not properly administering the federal programs in accordance with federal regulations. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the County review its procedures for communicating information to subrecipients and implement the procedures necessary to ensure information is included in the subrecipient award documents at time of funding and that appropriate monitoring is performed for each subrecipient. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303, requires that non-federal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Effective internal controls should include procedures in place to ensure the required certifications for covered contracts and subawards are received, documented, and contracts are not made with a debarred or suspended party. Condition: During our testing of five covered transactions (three vendors and two subawards), we noted all three vendors did not have proper supporting documentation for suspension and debarment procedures for vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: Three of the five covered transaction tested did not have proper supporting documentation for suspension and debarment procedures. Cause: One of the vendors was added as a contractor and two of the vendors were added as subcontractors in an amendment with an existing contractor. Since this was an amendment made subsequent to the original procurement activity, these vendors were overlooked for suspension and debarment procedures. Effect: Failure to obtain the required certifications or perform verification procedures with the SAM could result in the payment of federal funds to vendors that are suspended or debarred from participation in federal assistance programs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the County obtain certifications from vendors stating their organization is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from participation in federal assistance programs or document the procedures performed to verify the vendor is not identified as suspended or debarred on SAM. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.