Audit 396739

Finding 2025-001 Subrecipients Federal Agency: United States Department of Justice Federal Program: Edward Bryne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program Assistance Listing Number: 16.738 Award Identification Number: 2019-YA-BX-K002 Criteria or Specific Requirement: CFR § 200.332, "Requirements for pass-through entities", requires pass-through entities to evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring. Condition: During our audit, we noted that the pre-award risk assessment was not performed until November 2024, subsequent to the subaward being signed with the subawardee. Based on our discussions with management, the process for performing pre-award risk assessment for subrecipients and determining and documenting the appropriate level of ongoing monitoring for subrecipients was implemented in November 2024. We also noted that the Association did not perform the FFATA (Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act) reporting requirements. Cause: During 2025, the Association's finance department turned over significantly, resulting in oversight of the compliance requirement. Effect or Potential Effect: The Association could inadvertently engage in relationships with subrecipients of higher risk without the appropriate level of oversight (i.e. monitoring) to ensure subrecipients are expending funds in accordance with the provisions and terms of the subaward. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: Our audit procedures in this area consisted of substantive testwork over a sample of subrecipient expenditures that were selected based on a defined threshold. We consider our sample to be representative of the populations, and thus, is a statistically valid sample. The issue is deemed to be systemic. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: 2024-001 Recommendation: We recommend that the Association strictly adhere to its current subaward policy and ensure the risk assessment procedures over all of its subrecipients are performed and documented prior to engagement. Based on these risk assessments, the Association should assign a risk level to each, and then determine the monitoring tools to apply based on these risk levels.

Finding 2025-002 Use of Sole-Sourced Justification for Procurement Federal Agency: United States Department of Justice Federal Program: Edward Bryne Memorial Justice Assistance Grant Program Assistance Listing Number: 16.738 Award Identification Numbers: 2019-YA-BX-K002; 15PBJA-22-GK-01566-JAGJ; 15PBJA-22-GK- 04999-BSCI Criteria or Specific Requirement: Under Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) Section 200.320(f) “Methods of procurement to be followed”, procurements by noncompetitive proposals (i.e. sole-sourced justification) may be used only when one or more of the following circumstances apply:  The item is available only from a single source;  The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from competitive solicitation;  The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes noncompetitive proposals in response to a written request from the non-Federal entity; or  After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. Condition: During our testwork performed over procurement, we determined that the Association did not have adequate justification to permit sole sourced procurements. Cause: The Association does not have adequate internal controls in place to ensure that solesourced procurements meet one of the applicable circumstances identified above. Effect or Potential Effect: The Association could enter into contractual arrangements whereby they are not receiving the best value for the organization and/or in which there exists conflicts of interest. Ultimately, transparency with respect to these transactions could be compromised if the proper procurement actions are not followed. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: 3 of 4 samples selected for testing disclosed instances of consultants hired under the solesourced justification method of procurement. Although the expenses were properly supported, the rationale for sole-sourced selections did not appear to qualify for sole source exemption. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the Association limit its use of sole-sourced justification based on the above-noted requirements. In cases where sole-sourced is appropriate, we recommend that the actions (or lack of actions) be properly and fully documented. The importance in maintaining a record of each procurement action is to support the Association's due diligence process. We also believe this process helps identify any actual or potential conflicts of interest with prospective vendors and contractors.