Audit 404945

2025-001 – Procurement – Lack of cost or price analysis Cluster: Research and Development and also applies to Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program, which is not a cluster Sponsoring Agency: National Aeronautics and Space Administration and Department of Agriculture Award Name: NASA-90NSSC24K0999 and NI22EFNEPXXXG004-0003 Award Numbers: 208905 and 385076 Assistance Listing Title: Mission Support and Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program Assistance Listing Number: 43.009 and 10.514 Award Year: 2024 – 2025 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 - 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 15 selections) totaling $300,000. • 10.514 – Expanded Food and Nutrition Education Program – 1 selection was above the SAT (out of 2 selections) totaling $265,000. 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. Repeat Finding Yes. Repeat of finding 2024-001. 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 auidt findings and status

2025-002 – Subrecipient Monitoring - Lack of evidence of subrecipient Uniform Guidance report reviews Cluster: Research and Development Sponsoring Agency: Various agencies Award Names: Southeast Region Cybersecurity Collaboration Center (SERC3), Establish, manage, and maintain a public-private partnership (PPP) additive manufacturing (AM) consortium for the Rapid Manufacturing Propulsion Technology (RAMPT), Developing effective adaptation strategies to enhance the resilience of farmers under changing climate, Towards a sustainable bioeconomy: Biotransformation of paper mill sludge for value-added chirally pure (R)-1,3-butanediol production, A systems approach to perennial forage management using plant growth-promoting rhizobacteria Award Numbers: 212514, 208409, 200987, 205258, and 205264 Assistance Listing Title: Cybersecurity, Energy Security & Emergency Response (CESER), Science, Integrative Activities, and Agriculture and Food Research Initiative (AFRI) Assistance Listing Number: 81.008, 43.RD, 47.083, and 10.310 Award Year: 2024 - 2025 Pass-through entity: UT-Batelle LLC, RPM Innovations, Inc., New Mexico State University, Regents of the University of California, and University of Tennessee 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 24 subrecipients, we noted the following: • For the Research and Development Cluster, 5 out of 24 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. Repeat Finding Yes. Repeat of finding 2024-002. 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