Finding 2023-001: Audit Delays Federal Agency: United States Department of Agriculture Federal Program: Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program (FMD) Assistance Listing Number: 10.600 Pass-through Entity, if Applicable: None Award Identification Number and Year: F23GXCHSHO, F23GXCHDES, F23GXWWDES, F23GXSTNDS, F22GXEVALU Criteria or Specific Requirement: As noted in 2 CFR §200.512 the audit report should be submitted nine months after the end of the audit period. Condition: There were delays in receiving certain audit requests. The delays resulted in a late filing of the Uniform Guidance audit. Cause: The late submission resulted from delays in the audit process. Effect: Timely year-end closure is important to avoid increased potential for fraud, misstatements, and failures to adhere to donor and other regulations. Effective filing of documents decreases the potential for non-compliance with donor requirements, questioned costs or findings. Questioned Costs: None identified. Context: The filing is due nine months after fiscal year-end. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that LHCA ensure that the Uniform Guidance report is filed on time. A timely year-end closure, and appropriate maintenance and filing of financial and compliance documents, will help ensure that the report can be filed on time.
Finding 2023-002: Procurement Federal Agency: United States Department of Agriculture Federal Program: Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program (FMD) Assistance Listing Number: 10.600 Pass-through Entity, if Applicable: None Award Identification Number and Year: F23GXCHSHO, F23GXCHDES, F23GXWWDES, F23GXSTNDS, F22GXEVALU Criteria or Specific Requirement: In accordance with the Organization's policy and 2 CFR 200.320 "Procurement Methods", price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources for purchases over the applicable threshold. The Organization's guidelines include requirements to conduct an appropriate form of competition every three years on all multi-year contracts that are governed by the contracting guidelines. Also per the policy, contracts for market representation are not required to be re-competed after the initial reward. Instead, the performance of market representation must be evaluated and documented by the Organization annually to ensure that the terms of the contract are being met in a satisfactory manner. Condition: We noted opportunities to strengthen procurement documentation. In one instance, the selection analysis was not dated or formally approved and did not clearly identify the contract to which it related. In another instance, while documentation indicated that a request for proposal (RFP) was issued, no additional evaluation documentation or award conclusion was retained. Additionally, we noted an instance in which a market representative, for which re-competition is not required after the initial award, engaged under the USDA Market Access Program (MAP) was utilized to provide logistics support services, with costs charged to the Foreign Market Development (FMD) program.Based on discussions with management, logistics coordination is included within the scope of the China market representative’s original MAP contract. As such, these services were considered ancillary to the representative’s role and exempt from separate procurement requirements. However, contemporaneous documentation did not clearly demonstrate the formal rationale supporting the use of a noncompetitive procurement method under the FMD program. Strengthening documentation in this area would improve transparency and support compliance with applicable Federal requirements. Cause: Controls over procurement documentation and periodic compliance review were not sufficiently formalized to ensure consistent alignment with Uniform Guidance requirements. Effect: There is a risk that the Organization will not perform proper evaluation of each element of cost to determine reasonableness. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: Our audit procedures consisted of statistical sampling as well as substantive testwork over various samples of expenditures, and were deemed to be representative of the population for the fiscal year under audit. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization strengthen its procurement documentation and compliance procedures to ensure alignment with 2 CFR Part 200, as well as other applicable program guidelines. Specifically, the Organization should: Ensure all selection analyses are dated, formally approved, and clearly reference the applicable contract. Retain complete procurement files, including RFP documentation, evaluation criteria, scoring or comparative analyses, and documented award determinations. Implement a standardized procurement checklist to promote consistent documentation of the procurement rationale, selection process, and price reasonableness. For services provided by market representatives that are outside the original scope or are separately identifiable, perform appropriate competitive procurement procedures or clearly document the justification for a noncompetitive approach. Strengthening these procedures would enhance transparency, improve audit defensibility, and reduce the risk of questioned costs.
Finding 2023-003: Contribution Requirement Documentation Federal Agency: United States Department of Agriculture Federal Program: Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program (FMD) Assistance Listing Number: 10.600 Pass-through Entity, if Applicable: NoneAward Identification Number and Year: F23GXCHSHO, F23GXCHDES, F23GXWWDES, F23GXSTNDS, F22GXEVALU Criteria or Specific Requirement: The 2023 Foreign Market Development Cooperator Program approval letter requires a contribution level of 70% of project expenditures. This amount may include cash, goods, or services provided by U.S. entities in support of LHCA’s FMD program. All contributions must be documented and verifiable by audit. Condition: During the audit, we noted inconsistencies in the documentation supporting reported contributions. Although the Organization ultimately provided a schedule showing how the requirement was met, the underlying support for contributions met by Laboratory and other expenses was in some cases not clearly documented, and lacked a clear review and approval process. The Organization received prior USDA guidance indicating that certain research conducted by the Leather Research Laboratory may qualify as industry contributions if aligned with USDA export promotion activities. However, not all Laboratory activities are allowable under the program. To capture the Laboratory’s contribution, the Organization initially provided a schedule summarizing related revenue as contributions. While using revenue as a basis to estimate and allocate qualifying costs is conceptually reasonable, the approach of reporting revenue alone was not permissible under Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200), as revenue does not represent allowable, verifiable expenditures. Management subsequently provided a listing of actual Laboratory expenses believed to qualify as contributions, illustrating that the required contribution amount was met. Cause: The condition resulted from the absence of a formalized contributions policy and internal control process governing the identification, documentation, and review of allowable contributions. While management relied on general USDA guidance regarding qualifying industry contributions, the Organization did not establish detailed procedures to distinguish allowable from unallowable activities, or to ensure contributions were supported by verifiable expense documentation in accordance with Uniform Guidance. In addition, roles and responsibilities for review and approval were not clearly defined, resulting in inconsistent tracking methodologies and the use of an impermissible revenue-based approach. Effect: Contributions reported to USDA may not meet Uniform Guidance requirements, resulting in noncompliance and potential disallowance. Questioned Costs: None noted, as the Organization ultimately has numerous sources of contributions that illustrate that it met it's requirement, despite the inconsistent tracking and reporting. Context: Our audit procedures consisted of statistical sampling as well as substantive testwork over various samples of expenditures, and were deemed to be representative of the population for the fiscal year under audit. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: This is not a repeat finding.Recommendation: We recommend the Organization establish and implement a formal contributions policy and review process to ensure amounts reported comply with Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200) and program requirements. The policy should clearly define allowable contributions activities, require that reported amounts be supported by verifiable and auditable expense documentation (rather than revenue), and outline procedures for consistent tracking of personnel time and other contributions. Management should also implement a documented review and approval process to ensure contributions are accurate, allowable, and properly supported prior to submission. The Organization should also consult with USDA to formally clarify acceptable documentation and reporting requirements for industry contributions associated with lab activities.