Audit 357977

2024-001 – Procurement – Lack of cost or price analysis Cluster: Research and Development, SNAP, and also applies to COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, which is not a cluster Sponsoring Agency: Various agencies Award Names: DE-CR0000033, USDA-58-6010-9-011, WICHITA ST UN-23-01534, AL DHR-AGREE 4153-FY24, and ADF-RURAL HLTH INITIATIVE-OPS Award Numbers: 212514, 204805, 245195, 376563, and 223331 Assistance Listing Title: Cybersecurity, Energy Security & Emergency Response (CESER), Agricultural Research Basic and Applied Research, Other Financial Assistance, State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 81.008, 10.001, 12.RD, 10.561, and 21.027 Award Year: 2023 – 2024 Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition Through our testing of the various procurement requirements, we noted that the University did not complete a cost or price analysis in the following instances for all transactions over the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT)in our samples: • Research and Development cluster - 3 selections were above the SAT (out of 24 selections) totaling $4,009,243. • SNAP cluster - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 4 selections) totaling $385,000. • COVID-19- Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 1 selection) totaling $950,400. Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transactions could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan are included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of prior audit findings and status.

2024-001 – Procurement – Lack of cost or price analysis Cluster: Research and Development, SNAP, and also applies to COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, which is not a cluster Sponsoring Agency: Various agencies Award Names: DE-CR0000033, USDA-58-6010-9-011, WICHITA ST UN-23-01534, AL DHR-AGREE 4153-FY24, and ADF-RURAL HLTH INITIATIVE-OPS Award Numbers: 212514, 204805, 245195, 376563, and 223331 Assistance Listing Title: Cybersecurity, Energy Security & Emergency Response (CESER), Agricultural Research Basic and Applied Research, Other Financial Assistance, State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 81.008, 10.001, 12.RD, 10.561, and 21.027 Award Year: 2023 – 2024 Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition Through our testing of the various procurement requirements, we noted that the University did not complete a cost or price analysis in the following instances for all transactions over the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT)in our samples: • Research and Development cluster - 3 selections were above the SAT (out of 24 selections) totaling $4,009,243. • SNAP cluster - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 4 selections) totaling $385,000. • COVID-19- Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 1 selection) totaling $950,400. Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transactions could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan are included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of prior audit findings and status.

2024-001 – Procurement – Lack of cost or price analysis Cluster: Research and Development, SNAP, and also applies to COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, which is not a cluster Sponsoring Agency: Various agencies Award Names: DE-CR0000033, USDA-58-6010-9-011, WICHITA ST UN-23-01534, AL DHR-AGREE 4153-FY24, and ADF-RURAL HLTH INITIATIVE-OPS Award Numbers: 212514, 204805, 245195, 376563, and 223331 Assistance Listing Title: Cybersecurity, Energy Security & Emergency Response (CESER), Agricultural Research Basic and Applied Research, Other Financial Assistance, State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 81.008, 10.001, 12.RD, 10.561, and 21.027 Award Year: 2023 – 2024 Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition Through our testing of the various procurement requirements, we noted that the University did not complete a cost or price analysis in the following instances for all transactions over the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT)in our samples: • Research and Development cluster - 3 selections were above the SAT (out of 24 selections) totaling $4,009,243. • SNAP cluster - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 4 selections) totaling $385,000. • COVID-19- Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 1 selection) totaling $950,400. Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transactions could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan are included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of prior audit findings and status.

2024-001 – Procurement – Lack of cost or price analysis Cluster: Research and Development, SNAP, and also applies to COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, which is not a cluster Sponsoring Agency: Various agencies Award Names: DE-CR0000033, USDA-58-6010-9-011, WICHITA ST UN-23-01534, AL DHR-AGREE 4153-FY24, and ADF-RURAL HLTH INITIATIVE-OPS Award Numbers: 212514, 204805, 245195, 376563, and 223331 Assistance Listing Title: Cybersecurity, Energy Security & Emergency Response (CESER), Agricultural Research Basic and Applied Research, Other Financial Assistance, State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 81.008, 10.001, 12.RD, 10.561, and 21.027 Award Year: 2023 – 2024 Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition Through our testing of the various procurement requirements, we noted that the University did not complete a cost or price analysis in the following instances for all transactions over the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT)in our samples: • Research and Development cluster - 3 selections were above the SAT (out of 24 selections) totaling $4,009,243. • SNAP cluster - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 4 selections) totaling $385,000. • COVID-19- Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 1 selection) totaling $950,400. Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transactions could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan are included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of prior audit findings and status.

2024-001 – Procurement – Lack of cost or price analysis Cluster: Research and Development, SNAP, and also applies to COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, which is not a cluster Sponsoring Agency: Various agencies Award Names: DE-CR0000033, USDA-58-6010-9-011, WICHITA ST UN-23-01534, AL DHR-AGREE 4153-FY24, and ADF-RURAL HLTH INITIATIVE-OPS Award Numbers: 212514, 204805, 245195, 376563, and 223331 Assistance Listing Title: Cybersecurity, Energy Security & Emergency Response (CESER), Agricultural Research Basic and Applied Research, Other Financial Assistance, State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 81.008, 10.001, 12.RD, 10.561, and 21.027 Award Year: 2023 – 2024 Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition Through our testing of the various procurement requirements, we noted that the University did not complete a cost or price analysis in the following instances for all transactions over the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT)in our samples: • Research and Development cluster - 3 selections were above the SAT (out of 24 selections) totaling $4,009,243. • SNAP cluster - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 4 selections) totaling $385,000. • COVID-19- Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 1 selection) totaling $950,400. Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transactions could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan are included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of prior audit findings and status.

2024-002 – Subrecipient Monitoring - Lack of evidence of subrecipient Uniform Guidance report reviews Cluster: Research and Development Sponsoring Agency: Various agencies Award Names: Enabling Low Temperature Plasma (LTP) Ignition Technologies for Multi- Mode Engines Through the Development of a Validated High Fidelity LTP Model for Predictive Simulation Tools, Greater Alabama Black Belt Region (GABBR) LSAMP, and Reimagining controlled environment agriculture in a low carbon world Award Numbers: 211809, 200634, and 205280 Assistance Listing Title: Conservation Research and Development, STEM Education (formerly Education and Human Resources), and Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Assistance Listing Number: 81.086, 47.076, and 10.310 Award Year: 2023 - 2024 Pass-through entity: University of Texas Dallas, Association of Public & Land Grant Universities, Tuskegee University, and Clemson University Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Condition Through our testing of 25 subrecipients, we noted the following: • For the Research and Development Cluster, 3 out of 25 samples tested did not have supporting documentation to verify Auburn’s review of subrecipient’s financial statements and/or Uniform Guidance report available. Cause The University indicated subrecipient reviews were not consistently performed in accordance with 2 CFR 200.501. Additionally, due to a lack of clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and documentation practices among the existing team members within the Office of Sponsored Programs, the Uniform Guidance requirements (and related University procedures) around subrecipient reviews were not consistently performed and/or documented. Effect The inconsistency of reviews performed over subrecipient financial statements and Uniform Guidance reports may result in ineligible subrecipients receiving federal awards, subrecipient findings not being fully remediated, and other applicable procedures not being performed timely and appropriately. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the University reassess the design of its controls around the review process of subrecipient financial statements and Uniform Guidance reports. The University should ensure its procedures properly address the review process of this information, including timeliness and appropriate personnel. The University should also ensure these annual reviews are being appropriately documented and the documentation is being maintained properly. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan are included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of prior audit findings and status.

2024-002 – Subrecipient Monitoring - Lack of evidence of subrecipient Uniform Guidance report reviews Cluster: Research and Development Sponsoring Agency: Various agencies Award Names: Enabling Low Temperature Plasma (LTP) Ignition Technologies for Multi- Mode Engines Through the Development of a Validated High Fidelity LTP Model for Predictive Simulation Tools, Greater Alabama Black Belt Region (GABBR) LSAMP, and Reimagining controlled environment agriculture in a low carbon world Award Numbers: 211809, 200634, and 205280 Assistance Listing Title: Conservation Research and Development, STEM Education (formerly Education and Human Resources), and Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Assistance Listing Number: 81.086, 47.076, and 10.310 Award Year: 2023 - 2024 Pass-through entity: University of Texas Dallas, Association of Public & Land Grant Universities, Tuskegee University, and Clemson University Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Condition Through our testing of 25 subrecipients, we noted the following: • For the Research and Development Cluster, 3 out of 25 samples tested did not have supporting documentation to verify Auburn’s review of subrecipient’s financial statements and/or Uniform Guidance report available. Cause The University indicated subrecipient reviews were not consistently performed in accordance with 2 CFR 200.501. Additionally, due to a lack of clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and documentation practices among the existing team members within the Office of Sponsored Programs, the Uniform Guidance requirements (and related University procedures) around subrecipient reviews were not consistently performed and/or documented. Effect The inconsistency of reviews performed over subrecipient financial statements and Uniform Guidance reports may result in ineligible subrecipients receiving federal awards, subrecipient findings not being fully remediated, and other applicable procedures not being performed timely and appropriately. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the University reassess the design of its controls around the review process of subrecipient financial statements and Uniform Guidance reports. The University should ensure its procedures properly address the review process of this information, including timeliness and appropriate personnel. The University should also ensure these annual reviews are being appropriately documented and the documentation is being maintained properly. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan are included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of prior audit findings and status.

2024-002 – Subrecipient Monitoring - Lack of evidence of subrecipient Uniform Guidance report reviews Cluster: Research and Development Sponsoring Agency: Various agencies Award Names: Enabling Low Temperature Plasma (LTP) Ignition Technologies for Multi- Mode Engines Through the Development of a Validated High Fidelity LTP Model for Predictive Simulation Tools, Greater Alabama Black Belt Region (GABBR) LSAMP, and Reimagining controlled environment agriculture in a low carbon world Award Numbers: 211809, 200634, and 205280 Assistance Listing Title: Conservation Research and Development, STEM Education (formerly Education and Human Resources), and Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Assistance Listing Number: 81.086, 47.076, and 10.310 Award Year: 2023 - 2024 Pass-through entity: University of Texas Dallas, Association of Public & Land Grant Universities, Tuskegee University, and Clemson University Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Condition Through our testing of 25 subrecipients, we noted the following: • For the Research and Development Cluster, 3 out of 25 samples tested did not have supporting documentation to verify Auburn’s review of subrecipient’s financial statements and/or Uniform Guidance report available. Cause The University indicated subrecipient reviews were not consistently performed in accordance with 2 CFR 200.501. Additionally, due to a lack of clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and documentation practices among the existing team members within the Office of Sponsored Programs, the Uniform Guidance requirements (and related University procedures) around subrecipient reviews were not consistently performed and/or documented. Effect The inconsistency of reviews performed over subrecipient financial statements and Uniform Guidance reports may result in ineligible subrecipients receiving federal awards, subrecipient findings not being fully remediated, and other applicable procedures not being performed timely and appropriately. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the University reassess the design of its controls around the review process of subrecipient financial statements and Uniform Guidance reports. The University should ensure its procedures properly address the review process of this information, including timeliness and appropriate personnel. The University should also ensure these annual reviews are being appropriately documented and the documentation is being maintained properly. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan are included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of prior audit findings and status.

2024-001 – Procurement – Lack of cost or price analysis Cluster: Research and Development, SNAP, and also applies to COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, which is not a cluster Sponsoring Agency: Various agencies Award Names: DE-CR0000033, USDA-58-6010-9-011, WICHITA ST UN-23-01534, AL DHR-AGREE 4153-FY24, and ADF-RURAL HLTH INITIATIVE-OPS Award Numbers: 212514, 204805, 245195, 376563, and 223331 Assistance Listing Title: Cybersecurity, Energy Security & Emergency Response (CESER), Agricultural Research Basic and Applied Research, Other Financial Assistance, State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 81.008, 10.001, 12.RD, 10.561, and 21.027 Award Year: 2023 – 2024 Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition Through our testing of the various procurement requirements, we noted that the University did not complete a cost or price analysis in the following instances for all transactions over the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT)in our samples: • Research and Development cluster - 3 selections were above the SAT (out of 24 selections) totaling $4,009,243. • SNAP cluster - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 4 selections) totaling $385,000. • COVID-19- Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 1 selection) totaling $950,400. Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transactions could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan are included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of prior audit findings and status.

2024-001 – Procurement – Lack of cost or price analysis Cluster: Research and Development, SNAP, and also applies to COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, which is not a cluster Sponsoring Agency: Various agencies Award Names: DE-CR0000033, USDA-58-6010-9-011, WICHITA ST UN-23-01534, AL DHR-AGREE 4153-FY24, and ADF-RURAL HLTH INITIATIVE-OPS Award Numbers: 212514, 204805, 245195, 376563, and 223331 Assistance Listing Title: Cybersecurity, Energy Security & Emergency Response (CESER), Agricultural Research Basic and Applied Research, Other Financial Assistance, State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 81.008, 10.001, 12.RD, 10.561, and 21.027 Award Year: 2023 – 2024 Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition Through our testing of the various procurement requirements, we noted that the University did not complete a cost or price analysis in the following instances for all transactions over the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT)in our samples: • Research and Development cluster - 3 selections were above the SAT (out of 24 selections) totaling $4,009,243. • SNAP cluster - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 4 selections) totaling $385,000. • COVID-19- Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 1 selection) totaling $950,400. Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transactions could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan are included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of prior audit findings and status.

2024-001 – Procurement – Lack of cost or price analysis Cluster: Research and Development, SNAP, and also applies to COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, which is not a cluster Sponsoring Agency: Various agencies Award Names: DE-CR0000033, USDA-58-6010-9-011, WICHITA ST UN-23-01534, AL DHR-AGREE 4153-FY24, and ADF-RURAL HLTH INITIATIVE-OPS Award Numbers: 212514, 204805, 245195, 376563, and 223331 Assistance Listing Title: Cybersecurity, Energy Security & Emergency Response (CESER), Agricultural Research Basic and Applied Research, Other Financial Assistance, State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 81.008, 10.001, 12.RD, 10.561, and 21.027 Award Year: 2023 – 2024 Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition Through our testing of the various procurement requirements, we noted that the University did not complete a cost or price analysis in the following instances for all transactions over the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT)in our samples: • Research and Development cluster - 3 selections were above the SAT (out of 24 selections) totaling $4,009,243. • SNAP cluster - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 4 selections) totaling $385,000. • COVID-19- Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 1 selection) totaling $950,400. Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transactions could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan are included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of prior audit findings and status.

2024-001 – Procurement – Lack of cost or price analysis Cluster: Research and Development, SNAP, and also applies to COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, which is not a cluster Sponsoring Agency: Various agencies Award Names: DE-CR0000033, USDA-58-6010-9-011, WICHITA ST UN-23-01534, AL DHR-AGREE 4153-FY24, and ADF-RURAL HLTH INITIATIVE-OPS Award Numbers: 212514, 204805, 245195, 376563, and 223331 Assistance Listing Title: Cybersecurity, Energy Security & Emergency Response (CESER), Agricultural Research Basic and Applied Research, Other Financial Assistance, State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 81.008, 10.001, 12.RD, 10.561, and 21.027 Award Year: 2023 – 2024 Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition Through our testing of the various procurement requirements, we noted that the University did not complete a cost or price analysis in the following instances for all transactions over the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT)in our samples: • Research and Development cluster - 3 selections were above the SAT (out of 24 selections) totaling $4,009,243. • SNAP cluster - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 4 selections) totaling $385,000. • COVID-19- Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 1 selection) totaling $950,400. Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transactions could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan are included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of prior audit findings and status.

2024-001 – Procurement – Lack of cost or price analysis Cluster: Research and Development, SNAP, and also applies to COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, which is not a cluster Sponsoring Agency: Various agencies Award Names: DE-CR0000033, USDA-58-6010-9-011, WICHITA ST UN-23-01534, AL DHR-AGREE 4153-FY24, and ADF-RURAL HLTH INITIATIVE-OPS Award Numbers: 212514, 204805, 245195, 376563, and 223331 Assistance Listing Title: Cybersecurity, Energy Security & Emergency Response (CESER), Agricultural Research Basic and Applied Research, Other Financial Assistance, State Administrative Matching Grants for the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, and COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 81.008, 10.001, 12.RD, 10.561, and 21.027 Award Year: 2023 – 2024 Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition Through our testing of the various procurement requirements, we noted that the University did not complete a cost or price analysis in the following instances for all transactions over the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT)in our samples: • Research and Development cluster - 3 selections were above the SAT (out of 24 selections) totaling $4,009,243. • SNAP cluster - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 4 selections) totaling $385,000. • COVID-19- Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 1 selection) totaling $950,400. Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transactions could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan are included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of prior audit findings and status.

2024-002 – Subrecipient Monitoring - Lack of evidence of subrecipient Uniform Guidance report reviews Cluster: Research and Development Sponsoring Agency: Various agencies Award Names: Enabling Low Temperature Plasma (LTP) Ignition Technologies for Multi- Mode Engines Through the Development of a Validated High Fidelity LTP Model for Predictive Simulation Tools, Greater Alabama Black Belt Region (GABBR) LSAMP, and Reimagining controlled environment agriculture in a low carbon world Award Numbers: 211809, 200634, and 205280 Assistance Listing Title: Conservation Research and Development, STEM Education (formerly Education and Human Resources), and Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Assistance Listing Number: 81.086, 47.076, and 10.310 Award Year: 2023 - 2024 Pass-through entity: University of Texas Dallas, Association of Public & Land Grant Universities, Tuskegee University, and Clemson University Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Condition Through our testing of 25 subrecipients, we noted the following: • For the Research and Development Cluster, 3 out of 25 samples tested did not have supporting documentation to verify Auburn’s review of subrecipient’s financial statements and/or Uniform Guidance report available. Cause The University indicated subrecipient reviews were not consistently performed in accordance with 2 CFR 200.501. Additionally, due to a lack of clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and documentation practices among the existing team members within the Office of Sponsored Programs, the Uniform Guidance requirements (and related University procedures) around subrecipient reviews were not consistently performed and/or documented. Effect The inconsistency of reviews performed over subrecipient financial statements and Uniform Guidance reports may result in ineligible subrecipients receiving federal awards, subrecipient findings not being fully remediated, and other applicable procedures not being performed timely and appropriately. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the University reassess the design of its controls around the review process of subrecipient financial statements and Uniform Guidance reports. The University should ensure its procedures properly address the review process of this information, including timeliness and appropriate personnel. The University should also ensure these annual reviews are being appropriately documented and the documentation is being maintained properly. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan are included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of prior audit findings and status.

2024-002 – Subrecipient Monitoring - Lack of evidence of subrecipient Uniform Guidance report reviews Cluster: Research and Development Sponsoring Agency: Various agencies Award Names: Enabling Low Temperature Plasma (LTP) Ignition Technologies for Multi- Mode Engines Through the Development of a Validated High Fidelity LTP Model for Predictive Simulation Tools, Greater Alabama Black Belt Region (GABBR) LSAMP, and Reimagining controlled environment agriculture in a low carbon world Award Numbers: 211809, 200634, and 205280 Assistance Listing Title: Conservation Research and Development, STEM Education (formerly Education and Human Resources), and Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Assistance Listing Number: 81.086, 47.076, and 10.310 Award Year: 2023 - 2024 Pass-through entity: University of Texas Dallas, Association of Public & Land Grant Universities, Tuskegee University, and Clemson University Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Condition Through our testing of 25 subrecipients, we noted the following: • For the Research and Development Cluster, 3 out of 25 samples tested did not have supporting documentation to verify Auburn’s review of subrecipient’s financial statements and/or Uniform Guidance report available. Cause The University indicated subrecipient reviews were not consistently performed in accordance with 2 CFR 200.501. Additionally, due to a lack of clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and documentation practices among the existing team members within the Office of Sponsored Programs, the Uniform Guidance requirements (and related University procedures) around subrecipient reviews were not consistently performed and/or documented. Effect The inconsistency of reviews performed over subrecipient financial statements and Uniform Guidance reports may result in ineligible subrecipients receiving federal awards, subrecipient findings not being fully remediated, and other applicable procedures not being performed timely and appropriately. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the University reassess the design of its controls around the review process of subrecipient financial statements and Uniform Guidance reports. The University should ensure its procedures properly address the review process of this information, including timeliness and appropriate personnel. The University should also ensure these annual reviews are being appropriately documented and the documentation is being maintained properly. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan are included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of prior audit findings and status.

2024-002 – Subrecipient Monitoring - Lack of evidence of subrecipient Uniform Guidance report reviews Cluster: Research and Development Sponsoring Agency: Various agencies Award Names: Enabling Low Temperature Plasma (LTP) Ignition Technologies for Multi- Mode Engines Through the Development of a Validated High Fidelity LTP Model for Predictive Simulation Tools, Greater Alabama Black Belt Region (GABBR) LSAMP, and Reimagining controlled environment agriculture in a low carbon world Award Numbers: 211809, 200634, and 205280 Assistance Listing Title: Conservation Research and Development, STEM Education (formerly Education and Human Resources), and Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Assistance Listing Number: 81.086, 47.076, and 10.310 Award Year: 2023 - 2024 Pass-through entity: University of Texas Dallas, Association of Public & Land Grant Universities, Tuskegee University, and Clemson University Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Condition Through our testing of 25 subrecipients, we noted the following: • For the Research and Development Cluster, 3 out of 25 samples tested did not have supporting documentation to verify Auburn’s review of subrecipient’s financial statements and/or Uniform Guidance report available. Cause The University indicated subrecipient reviews were not consistently performed in accordance with 2 CFR 200.501. Additionally, due to a lack of clearly defined roles, responsibilities, and documentation practices among the existing team members within the Office of Sponsored Programs, the Uniform Guidance requirements (and related University procedures) around subrecipient reviews were not consistently performed and/or documented. Effect The inconsistency of reviews performed over subrecipient financial statements and Uniform Guidance reports may result in ineligible subrecipients receiving federal awards, subrecipient findings not being fully remediated, and other applicable procedures not being performed timely and appropriately. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend that the University reassess the design of its controls around the review process of subrecipient financial statements and Uniform Guidance reports. The University should ensure its procedures properly address the review process of this information, including timeliness and appropriate personnel. The University should also ensure these annual reviews are being appropriately documented and the documentation is being maintained properly. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan are included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of prior audit findings and status.