Criteria: The Corporation must maintain and adhere to documented procurement procedures that must conform to the procurement standards in 2 CFR Sections 200.317 through 200.327. These sections include policies and procedures related to competition, informal and formal procurement methods and noncompetitive procurement. Condition: We noted that there was a lack of evidence that policies and procedures were applied as required under the noted 2 CFR Sections in “Criteria”. During our testing of procurement, the Corporation was unable to provide evidence to support that a competitive price analysis for 1 vendor out of the 3 samples. Additionally, per management, no written documentation can be provided for any sole source procurements. Cause: The Corporation did not maintain formal documentation or evidence to support that a competitive price analysis for vendors, as required by the general procurement standards of the Uniform Guidance. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to determine whether charges relating to vendor services or goods charged to the Federal programs are in accordance with 2 CFR Sections 200.317 through 200.327 or 200.214. Questioned costs: None Context: We tested a sample of 3 procurements and found exceptions as noted in the condition. This is a condition identified per review of the Corporation’s compliance with specified requirements using a statistically valid sample. Repeat finding: This is a repeat finding from prior year. This was reported as finding 2023-007 in the 2023 report. Recommendation: We recommend the Corporation establish formal internal controls, and documentation of their performance, relating procurement, required price analysis of vendors, and suspension and debarment verifications. View of Responsible Officials: Previously, the company faced challenges in effectively monitoring and documenting grant activity due to limited formal processes. Documentation of policies and procedures was insufficient, and supporting materials were not stored in a centralized location, making information retrieval difficult. Since then, processes have improved, with enhanced documentation practices and better organization of grant-related records to support more efficient oversight and compliance.
Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR Section 200.430(g)(i), charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that reflect the actual work performed. The charges must be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated, and must be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity. In addition, 2 CFR Section 200.430(g)(1)(vii) states that budget estimates alone do not qualify as support for charges to Federal awards, but may be used for interim accounting, provided certain additional internal controls are implemented. Condition: During our testing of salaries and wages, we noted that all 182 sampled transactions did not include detail by program. Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages were based on estimated allocations, rather than use of a system of internal controls that accounts for actual time and effort. Cause: While there is a time keeping system implemented to track daily hours worked by employees, the Corporation’s current internal control system does not allow for specific coding for time actually spent on each federally funded program that would support the amount charged to the Federal award. Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to determine whether charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages reflect specific time worked or amounts allocated by employee to specific Federal programs. Allowable costs incurred by the Corporation exceeded the amount of approved grant funding, therefore no questioned costs are reported. Questioned costs: None Context: We selected 182 salary transactions charged to the Federal programs to test controls over allowable costs. All transactions charged to the Federal programs were based on budgeted Full Time Equivalents (FTE), and not actual hours employees worked for each Federal program. No analysis or true-up was performed to determine the accuracy of employee titles or amounts charged versus actual time and effort incurred. This is a condition identified per review of the Corporation’s compliance with specified requirements using a statistically valid sample. Repeat finding: This is a repeat finding from prior year. This was reported as finding 2023-005 in the 2023 report. Recommendation: We recommend the Corporation develop and incorporate internal controls in order to track specific time spent on each Federal program. This can include, time and effort reports completed on a routine basis, such as monthly, and adjust program expenditures as needed to properly reflect actual work performed. Completed time and effort reports should be reviewed and verified by management for accuracy. View of Responsible Officials: The time keeping system and process does not currently allow tracking of time based on funded resources. The past practice had been for the Finance Department manually calculated salary allocations. Due to the influx of grants and staffing resources the Corporation was unable to maintain this process.
Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR Section 200.431(d), fringe benefits may be assigned to cost objectives by identifying specific benefits to specific individuals or by allocating on the basis of entity-wide salaries and wages of the employees receiving the benefits. When the allocation method is used, separate allocations must be made to selective groupings of employees, unless the non-Federal entity demonstrates that costs in relationships to salaries and wages do not differ significantly for different groups of employees. Condition: During our testing of fringe benefits expenses, we noted that all 182 sampled transactions did not include detail by program. Charges to the Federal award for fringe benefits were based on an anticipated fringe benefit cost, for which the Corporation did not maintain an assignment of cost objectives calculation and its related requirements. Cause:The Corporation did not have formal process and policies to demonstrate adherence to the fringe benefits cost objectives of 2 CFR Section 200.431(d). Effect or Potential Effect: We were unable to determine whether charges to Federal awards for fringe benefits reflect specific time worked or amounts allocated to specific Federal programs, even though the charges are not in excess of amounts approved for the grant period. Questioned costs: None Context: We selected 182 fringe benefit transactions charged to the Federal programs to test controls over allowable costs. Each fringe benefit transaction was calculated by applying a fringe benefit cost rate to actual salaries and wages of each employee tested. The fringe benefit cost rate was based on anticipated fringe benefit cost rate which was neither supported by an actual calculation nor analysis of the related group of employees used in such calculation. This is a condition identified per review of the Corporation’s compliance with specified requirements using a statistically valid sample.. Repeat finding: This is a repeat finding from prior year. This was reported as finding 2023-006 in the 2023 report. Recommendation: We recommend the Corporation develop and incorporate internal controls and policies to demonstrate adherence to the fringe benefits cost objectives of 2 CFR Section 200.431(d). View of Responsible Officials: Due to the financial system and time keeping infrastructure, the Corporation did not maintain evidence of fringe benefit cost objectives calculations. Also, the current fringe cost rate and allocations is based on historical assumptions.
Criteria: Applicants for WIC program benefits are screened at WIC clinic sites to determine their WIC eligibility. To be certified eligible, they must meet the eligibility criteria defined at 7 CFR sections 246.7(c), (d), (e), (g), and (l) related to Category, Identity and Residency, Income, and Nutritional Risk. Condition: During our testing of eligibility, the Corporation was unable to provide support that eligibility assessments performed were reviewed. For 2 of the 40 samples, proper segregation of duties was not maintained as the staff person who determined income eligibility was the same staff person who completed the medical risk assessment. Cause: The staff did not consistently follow formal policies and procedures over eligibility. Effect or Potential Effect: Lack of strict adherence to documentation requirements may have resulted in the Corporation providing benefits to ineligible beneficiaries. Questioned costs: None Context: We tested a sample of 40 participants determined to be eligible and found exceptions as noted in the condition. This is a condition identified per review of the Corporation’s compliance with specified requirements using a statistically valid sample. Repeat finding: This is a repeat finding from prior year. This was reported as finding 2023-008 in the 2023 report. Recommendation: We recommend the Corporation establish formal internal controls, and documentation of their performance, relating to assessing eligibility of participants. View of Responsible Officials: Due to staff turnover, the Corporation did not consistently enforce segregation of duties between the individual responsible for determining income eligibility and the one completing the medical risk assessment.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303(a) establishes that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides assurance that the entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Additionally, 2 CFR Appendix IV to Part 200 Section B.2(b) requires that both the direct costs and the indirect costs must exclude capital expenditures and unallowable costs. Per Compliance Supplement, these indirect costs must conform to the allowability of cost provisions in 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E or award agreement. Condition: During our testing of indirect costs, we noted that the Corporation charges the Federally approved rate of 28.7% on specific grant awards based on direct salaries and wages. However, the Corporation did not maintain ongoing supporting documentation of eligible indirect costs. Cause: The Corporation did not have formal process and policies to demonstrate adherence to the allowability requirements of indirect costs in accordance with 2 CFR Appendix IV to Part 200 Section B.2(b). Effect or Potential Effect: Additional efforts after year end were required to determine whether indirect costs charged to Federal awards conform to the allowability of cost provisions in 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E or award agreement. Allowable costs incurred by the Corporation exceeded the amount of approved grant funding, therefore no questioned costs are reported. Questioned costs: None Context: Additional efforts after year end were required by management in order to provide sufficient and appropriate evidence that the reported indirect costs conformed to the allowability of cost provisions in 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E or award agreement. Repeat finding: This is a repeat finding from prior year. This was reported as finding 2023-009 in the 2023 report. Recommendation: We recommend the Corporation develop and incorporate internal controls and policies to demonstrate adherence to the allowability requirements of indirect costs in accordance with 2 CFR Appendix IV to Part 200 Section B.2(b). View of Responsible Officials: Due to staff turnover the Corporation did not have adequate personnel or infrastructure in place to monitor costs in order to calculate and determine an updated indirect cost rate. Also, the current indirect cost rate allocations is based on historical assumptions.