FA 2025-001 Improve Controls over Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Material Weakness Compliance Impact: Material Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Title: 84.027A – Grants to States; 84.173A – Preschool Grants Federal Award Number: H027A230073 (Year: 2024), H027A240073 (Year: 2025), H173A240081 (Year: 2025) Questioned Costs: $4,500 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Special Education Cluster revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that the School District’s procurement and suspension and debarment procedures were followed. Background Information: The Special Education Cluster (SEC), which is comprised of the Special Education Grants to States (IDEA, Part B) and Special Education Preschool Grants (IDEA Preschool) programs, was authorized under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Special Education Cluster funding is available to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepares them for further education, employment, and independent living; ensure that the rights of children with disabilities and their parents are protected; assist states, localities, educational service agencies, and federal agencies to provide for the education of all children with disabilities; and assess and ensure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities. SEC funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. SEC funds totaling $525,466 were expended and reported on the Evans County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2025. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish, document, and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to 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 200.303 – Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 – General Procurement Standards state, “(a)… the recipient or subrecipient must maintain and use documented procedures for procurement transactions under a Federal award or subaward, including for acquisition of property or services. These documented procurement procedures must be consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations… (b) Recipients and subrecipients must maintain oversight to ensure that contractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders.” In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.320 – Procurement Methods provide guidance for informal procurement methods and state “If simplified acquisition procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources.” Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.320(c) – Noncompetitive Procurement states that procurement by a noncompetitive method may only be used if one of the circumstances outlined applies, including when “the procurement transaction can only be fulfilled by a single source.” Furthermore, Title 2 CFR Section 180.300 states in part that the recipient or subrecipient must “verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking SAM.gov Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person.” Condition: A sample of 12 procurement transactions was randomly selected for testing using a nonstatistical sampling approach. These transactions were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. The School District could not provide evidence that an adequate number of rate or price quotations were obtained from qualified sources or documentary evidence as justification for single source procurement for one small purchase expenditure reviewed. In addition, a sample of 2 covered transactions was randomly selected for testing using a nonstatistical sampling approach. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. Although it was determined that the vendors associated with these transactions were not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction, documentation could not be provided to support the entity’s verification as required by the School District’s policies and procedures. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $10,504 in procurement transactions, known questioned costs of $4,500 were identified for expenditures that did not follow the School District’s procurement procedures. Using the total population of $101,739 in procurement transactions, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $43,585. The following Assistance Listing Numbers were affected by known and likely questioned costs: 84.027A and 84.173A. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with the School District, they believe these issues are primarily due to the lack of proper documentation and not following its policies and procedures that govern the procurement process for federal programs. Specifically, Management stated that rate or price quotations were not obtained because the vendor was considered a single source provider; however, documentation supporting the single source procurement method was not maintained. Effect: The School District was not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance and GaDOE guidance. Failure to appropriately implement procedures to address procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirements exposes the School District to unnecessary risk of error and misuse of federal funds and could result in the expenditure of federal funds with unqualified vendors. In addition, this deficiency could lead to the return of federal funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should evaluate and improve internal control procedures to ensure that required procurement methods are properly identified and followed and required procurement and suspension and debarment documentation is properly identified, safeguarded, and retained. In addition, management should develop a monitoring process to ensure that these procedures are operating appropriately. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.