FAC Explorer

Audit 352825

FY End
2024-09-30
Total Expended
$2.48M
Findings
60
Programs
24
Organization: Sunrise County Economic Council (ME)
Year: 2024 Accepted: 2025-04-07
Auditor: One River CPAS

Organization Exclusion Status:

Findings

ID Ref Severity Repeat Requirement
554250 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554251 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554252 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554253 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554254 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554255 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554256 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554257 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554258 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554259 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554260 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554261 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554262 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554263 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554264 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554265 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554266 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554267 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554268 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554269 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554270 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554271 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554272 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554273 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554274 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554275 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554276 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554277 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554278 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
554279 2024-002 Significant Deficiency - I
1130692 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130693 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130694 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130695 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130696 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130697 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130698 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130699 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130700 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130701 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130702 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130703 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130704 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130705 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130706 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130707 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130708 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130709 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130710 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130711 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130712 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130713 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130714 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130715 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130716 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130717 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130718 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130719 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130720 2024-003 Significant Deficiency Yes P
1130721 2024-002 Significant Deficiency - I

Programs

ALN Program Spent Major Findings
93.558 Temporary Assistance for Needy Families $992,378 Yes 1
21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds $219,639 Yes 2
10.767 Intermediary Relending Program $190,115 - 1
10.870 Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program $178,053 - 1
12.002 Procurement Technical Assistance for Business Firms $106,082 - 1
10.561 State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program $79,030 - 1
10.351 Rural Business Development Grant $74,892 - 1
20.205 Highway Planning and Construction $48,571 - 1
90.601 Northern Border Regional Development $42,981 - 1
32.011 Affordable Connectivity Outreach Grant Program $38,139 - 1
11.472 Unallied Science Program $35,265 - 1
11.008 Noaa Mission-Related Education Awards $33,565 - 1
66.818 Brownfields Multipurpose, Assessment, Revolving Loan Fund, and Cleanup Cooperative Agreements $31,459 - 1
15.939 Heritage Partnership $25,284 - 1
14.228 Community Development Block Grants/state's Program and Non-Entitlement Grants in Hawaii $18,643 - 1
11.037 Chips Incentives Program $13,968 - 1
10.310 Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (afri) $10,306 - 1
97.039 Hazard Mitigation Grant $8,737 - 1
84.116 Fund for the Improvement of Postsecondary Education $6,761 - 1
47.083 Integrative Activities $6,240 - 1
10.868 Rural Energy for America Program $5,881 - 1
11.419 Coastal Zone Management Administration Awards $2,412 - 1
47.076 Stem Education (formerly Education and Human Resources) $2,269 - 1
59.059 Congressional Grants $823 - 1

Contacts

Name Title Type
Q2KKFA8U27J5 Gabriela Montoya-Eyerman Auditee
2072595111 Heather Browne Auditor
No contacts on file

Notes to SEFA

Title: BASIS OF PRESENTATION Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: Sunrise County Economic Council has elected not to use the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards (the Schedule) includes the federal award activity of Sunrise County Economic Council under programs of the federal government for the year ended September 30, 2024. The information in this Schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Because the Schedule presents only a selected portion of the operations of Sunrise County Economic Council, it is not intended to and does not present the financial position, changes in net assets, or cash flows of Sunrise County Economic Council.
Title: SUMMARY OF SIGNIFICANT ACCOUNTING POLICIES Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: Sunrise County Economic Council has elected not to use the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance. Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement.
Title: INDIRECT COST RATE Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: Sunrise County Economic Council has elected not to use the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance. Sunrise County Economic Council has elected not to use the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance.
Title: LENDING PROGRAMS Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: Sunrise County Economic Council has elected not to use the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance. Sunrise County Economic Council has two loans outstanding that were originated in June 2016 and October 2021 by the USDA Rural Development to provide funding for a Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Program. The amount listed for this program includes the beginning of the period loan balances plus new loans issued plus proceeds used during the year. The balance owed at the end of the period is $275,306. Sunrise County Economic Council has a loan outstanding that was originated in October 2018 by the USDA Rural Development to provide funding for an Intermediary Relending Program. The amount listed for this loan includes the beginning of the period loan balance plus proceeds used during the year. The balance owed at the end of the period is $180,983.
Title: DONATED PERSONAL PROTECTIVE EQUIPMENT Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: Sunrise County Economic Council has elected not to use the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance. Sunrise County Economic Council did not receive any donated Personal Protective Equipment purchased with federal funding during the year ended September 30, 2024.

Finding Details

Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-002
Noncompliance with Procurement, Suspension, & Debarment Standard (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: 21.027 COVID-19: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, §200.214 prohibits non-federal entities from contracting with parties that are suspended or debarred under covered transactions. Condition and Context: Audit procedures revealed that there was not a policy or process in place to formally document the review of the contracted entity for suspension and debarment prior to entering into the agreement. Cause: The Organization does not have a formal process to document suspension and debarment. Management was unaware of the requirement, though it was clear the management thoughtfully considered the contractor’s reputation and determined that the contractor was suited for the agreement. Effect: The Organization did not perform its review of suspension and debarment for this agreement, though the contractor was found to not be on prohibited lists at annual review. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should strengthen their processes, controls, and review over suspension and debarment processes, and develop a written policy on such items to ensure compliance with Uniform Administrative Requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: As stated by the auditor, SCEC is selective about who to enter contracts with and has long-standing relationships with the organizations we were working with on these efforts, who also had other Federal contracts in process that we were aware of. We have instituted a finance procedure to check all contractors and sub-contractors on the Sam.gov’s verification of debarment and suspension tool before the first payment under the contract is issued and a policy that all SCEC contracts or subawards over $25,000 that utilize federal or state funds must include a suspension and debarment certification.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-003
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Finding 2024-002
Noncompliance with Procurement, Suspension, & Debarment Standard (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: 21.027 COVID-19: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, §200.214 prohibits non-federal entities from contracting with parties that are suspended or debarred under covered transactions. Condition and Context: Audit procedures revealed that there was not a policy or process in place to formally document the review of the contracted entity for suspension and debarment prior to entering into the agreement. Cause: The Organization does not have a formal process to document suspension and debarment. Management was unaware of the requirement, though it was clear the management thoughtfully considered the contractor’s reputation and determined that the contractor was suited for the agreement. Effect: The Organization did not perform its review of suspension and debarment for this agreement, though the contractor was found to not be on prohibited lists at annual review. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should strengthen their processes, controls, and review over suspension and debarment processes, and develop a written policy on such items to ensure compliance with Uniform Administrative Requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: As stated by the auditor, SCEC is selective about who to enter contracts with and has long-standing relationships with the organizations we were working with on these efforts, who also had other Federal contracts in process that we were aware of. We have instituted a finance procedure to check all contractors and sub-contractors on the Sam.gov’s verification of debarment and suspension tool before the first payment under the contract is issued and a policy that all SCEC contracts or subawards over $25,000 that utilize federal or state funds must include a suspension and debarment certification.