Criteria or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards requires that when a nonfederal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the nonfederal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. This verification may be accomplished by (1) checking the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA) and available at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/, (2) collecting a certification from the entity, or (3) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that entity (2 CFR section 180.300).
Condition: During testing of a sample of five vendors subject to the Association’s Suspension and Debarment controls, we noted one instance where there was a lack of evidence that the Association verified that the vendor was not suspended or debarred.
Questioned Costs: None.
Context: One vendor, out of our sample of five, was found to have no evidence of verification that the vendor was not suspended or debarred. We did later verify that the vendor was not suspended or debarred.
Cause: Per discussion with management and the outsourced compliance firm, the Association did verify that the vendor was not suspended or debarred; yet the documentation supporting such verification could not be located. As such, the Association could not demonstrate that verification procedures were performed.
Effect: Without maintaining supporting evidence that suspension and debarment procedures were performed over all applicable vendors, the Association cannot support that the federally required procedures were performed and could potentially contract with vendors who are suspended or debarred, causing the Association to be out of compliance with regulations.
Repeat Finding: Yes.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Association maintain evidence of suspension and debarment procedures to support compliance with federal regulations and to ensure that all potential vendors are not suspended or debarred.
Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards requires that when a nonfederal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the nonfederal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. This verification may be accomplished by (1) checking the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA) and available at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/, (2) collecting a certification from the entity, or (3) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that entity (2 CFR section 180.300).
Condition: During testing of a sample of five vendors subject to the Association’s Suspension and Debarment controls, we noted one instance where there was a lack of evidence that the Association verified that the vendor was not suspended or debarred.
Questioned Costs: None.
Context: One vendor, out of our sample of five, was found to have no evidence of verification that the vendor was not suspended or debarred. We did later verify that the vendor was not suspended or debarred.
Cause: Per discussion with management and the outsourced compliance firm, the Association did verify that the vendor was not suspended or debarred; yet the documentation supporting such verification could not be located. As such, the Association could not demonstrate that verification procedures were performed.
Effect: Without maintaining supporting evidence that suspension and debarment procedures were performed over all applicable vendors, the Association cannot support that the federally required procedures were performed and could potentially contract with vendors who are suspended or debarred, causing the Association to be out of compliance with regulations.
Repeat Finding: Yes.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Association maintain evidence of suspension and debarment procedures to support compliance with federal regulations and to ensure that all potential vendors are not suspended or debarred.
Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations require recipients of federal funds to document the history of procurement transactions, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price.
Federal regulations also specific certain procurement methods that recipients must use in certain circumstances. These regulations allow recipients to utilize a noncompetitive procurement method if one or more of the following circumstances apply:
(1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold;
(2) The item is available only from a single source;
(3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation;
(4) The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non-Federal entity; or
(5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate.
Condition: During our testing, we noted that for seven out of eight procurement transactions tested, the Organization did not have documentation of the history of procurement transaction, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price.
Questioned Costs: None
Context: The history of procurement transactions, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price, was not documented for seven of eight procurement transactions tested.
Cause: The Organization stated that documentation of procurement procedures is not required for certain transactions due to the nature of the transaction based on their internal process.
Effect: The Organization may not be in compliance with federal regulations for certain procurement transactions.
Repeat Finding: Yes.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization revise its procurement process so that procurement procedures apply to all transactions using thresholds and procurement methods specified by federal regulations, and maintain documentation required by such regulations.
Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations require recipients of federal funds to document the history of procurement transactions, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price.
Federal regulations also specific certain procurement methods that recipients must use in certain circumstances. These regulations allow recipients to utilize a noncompetitive procurement method if one or more of the following circumstances apply:
(1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold;
(2) The item is available only from a single source;
(3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation;
(4) The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non-Federal entity; or
(5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate.
Condition: During our testing, we noted that for seven out of eight procurement transactions tested, the Organization did not have documentation of the history of procurement transaction, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price.
Questioned Costs: None
Context: The history of procurement transactions, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price, was not documented for seven of eight procurement transactions tested.
Cause: The Organization stated that documentation of procurement procedures is not required for certain transactions due to the nature of the transaction based on their internal process.
Effect: The Organization may not be in compliance with federal regulations for certain procurement transactions.
Repeat Finding: Yes.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization revise its procurement process so that procurement procedures apply to all transactions using thresholds and procurement methods specified by federal regulations, and maintain documentation required by such regulations.
Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards requires that when a nonfederal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the nonfederal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. This verification may be accomplished by (1) checking the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA) and available at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/, (2) collecting a certification from the entity, or (3) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that entity (2 CFR section 180.300).
Condition: During testing of a sample of five vendors subject to the Association’s Suspension and Debarment controls, we noted one instance where there was a lack of evidence that the Association verified that the vendor was not suspended or debarred.
Questioned Costs: None.
Context: One vendor, out of our sample of five, was found to have no evidence of verification that the vendor was not suspended or debarred. We did later verify that the vendor was not suspended or debarred.
Cause: Per discussion with management and the outsourced compliance firm, the Association did verify that the vendor was not suspended or debarred; yet the documentation supporting such verification could not be located. As such, the Association could not demonstrate that verification procedures were performed.
Effect: Without maintaining supporting evidence that suspension and debarment procedures were performed over all applicable vendors, the Association cannot support that the federally required procedures were performed and could potentially contract with vendors who are suspended or debarred, causing the Association to be out of compliance with regulations.
Repeat Finding: Yes.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Association maintain evidence of suspension and debarment procedures to support compliance with federal regulations and to ensure that all potential vendors are not suspended or debarred.
Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards requires that when a nonfederal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the nonfederal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. This verification may be accomplished by (1) checking the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA) and available at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/, (2) collecting a certification from the entity, or (3) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that entity (2 CFR section 180.300).
Condition: During testing of a sample of five vendors subject to the Association’s Suspension and Debarment controls, we noted one instance where there was a lack of evidence that the Association verified that the vendor was not suspended or debarred.
Questioned Costs: None.
Context: One vendor, out of our sample of five, was found to have no evidence of verification that the vendor was not suspended or debarred. We did later verify that the vendor was not suspended or debarred.
Cause: Per discussion with management and the outsourced compliance firm, the Association did verify that the vendor was not suspended or debarred; yet the documentation supporting such verification could not be located. As such, the Association could not demonstrate that verification procedures were performed.
Effect: Without maintaining supporting evidence that suspension and debarment procedures were performed over all applicable vendors, the Association cannot support that the federally required procedures were performed and could potentially contract with vendors who are suspended or debarred, causing the Association to be out of compliance with regulations.
Repeat Finding: Yes.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Association maintain evidence of suspension and debarment procedures to support compliance with federal regulations and to ensure that all potential vendors are not suspended or debarred.
Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations require recipients of federal funds to document the history of procurement transactions, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price.
Federal regulations also specific certain procurement methods that recipients must use in certain circumstances. These regulations allow recipients to utilize a noncompetitive procurement method if one or more of the following circumstances apply:
(1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold;
(2) The item is available only from a single source;
(3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation;
(4) The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non-Federal entity; or
(5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate.
Condition: During our testing, we noted that for seven out of eight procurement transactions tested, the Organization did not have documentation of the history of procurement transaction, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price.
Questioned Costs: None
Context: The history of procurement transactions, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price, was not documented for seven of eight procurement transactions tested.
Cause: The Organization stated that documentation of procurement procedures is not required for certain transactions due to the nature of the transaction based on their internal process.
Effect: The Organization may not be in compliance with federal regulations for certain procurement transactions.
Repeat Finding: Yes.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization revise its procurement process so that procurement procedures apply to all transactions using thresholds and procurement methods specified by federal regulations, and maintain documentation required by such regulations.
Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations require recipients of federal funds to document the history of procurement transactions, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price.
Federal regulations also specific certain procurement methods that recipients must use in certain circumstances. These regulations allow recipients to utilize a noncompetitive procurement method if one or more of the following circumstances apply:
(1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold;
(2) The item is available only from a single source;
(3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation;
(4) The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non-Federal entity; or
(5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate.
Condition: During our testing, we noted that for seven out of eight procurement transactions tested, the Organization did not have documentation of the history of procurement transaction, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price.
Questioned Costs: None
Context: The history of procurement transactions, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price, was not documented for seven of eight procurement transactions tested.
Cause: The Organization stated that documentation of procurement procedures is not required for certain transactions due to the nature of the transaction based on their internal process.
Effect: The Organization may not be in compliance with federal regulations for certain procurement transactions.
Repeat Finding: Yes.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization revise its procurement process so that procurement procedures apply to all transactions using thresholds and procurement methods specified by federal regulations, and maintain documentation required by such regulations.
Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.