Audit 42725

FY End
2022-06-30
Total Expended
$887,533
Findings
2
Programs
9
Year: 2022 Accepted: 2022-10-16

Organization Exclusion Status:

Checking exclusion status...

Findings

ID Ref Severity Repeat Requirement
50161 2022-002 Material Weakness - N
626603 2022-002 Material Weakness - N

Programs

Contacts

Name Title Type
MUETVF8JQV55 Brad Briscoe Auditee
8162402621 Brian Eckhoff Auditor
No contacts on file

Notes to SEFA

Title: Basis of Presentation Accounting Policies: Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the cash basis of accounting. Such expenditures are recognized following the cost principles contained in the Uniform Guidance, wherein certain types of expenditures are not allowable or are limited as to reimbursement. Wellington-Napoleon R-IX School District has elected not to use the 10-percent de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The auditee did not use the de minimis cost rate. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards (the "Schedule") includes the federal award activity of Wellington-Napoleon R-IX School District under programs of the federal government for the year ended June 30, 2022. The information in this Schedule is presented in accordance with the requirements of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). Because the Schedule presents only a selected portion of the operations of Wellington-Napoleon R-IX School District, it is not intended to and does not present the financial position, change in net position or cash flows of Wellington-Napoleon R-IX School District.

Finding Details

U.S. Department of Education Program Name: Education Stabilization Fund AL No. 84.425 MATERIAL WEAKNESS 2022-002 SPECIAL TESTS AND PROVISIONS Criteria: Per the 2022 OMB Compliance Supplement, ?All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors to work on construction contracts in excess of $2,000 financed by federal assistance funds must be paid wages not less than those established for the locality of the project (prevailing wage rates) by the Department of Labor (DOL) (40 USC 3141?3144, 3146, and 3147). Nonfederal entities shall include in their construction contracts subject to the Wage Rate Requirements (which still may be referenced as the Davis-Bacon Act) a provision that the contractor or subcontractor comply with those requirements and the DOL regulations (29 CFR Part 5, Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contacts Governing Federally Financed and Assisted Construction). This includes a requirement for the contractor or subcontractor to submit to the nonfederal entity weekly, for each week in which any contract work is performed, a copy of the payroll and a statement of compliance (certified payrolls) (29 CFR sections 5.5 and 5.6; the A-102 Common Rule (section 36(i)(5)); OMB Circular A-110 (2 CFR Part 215, Appendix A, Contract Provisions); 2 CFR Part 176, Subpart C; and 2 CFR section 200.326).? Condition: During our testing of the District?s Education Stabilization Fund, we noted the District had a contract for flooring installation that was subject to the prevailing wage rate requirements under 20 USC 1232b; however, the contractor did not pay prevailing wages for the work performed. Questioned Costs: None Context: We noted that the District?s flooring contractor did not pay prevailing wages as required by the Department of Labor for federally-financed contracts. Cause: The District understood the threshold for compliance with the prevailing wage requirements to be more a federally-financed contract exceeding $75,000 rather than federally-financed contracts exceeding $2,000. Effect: The District did not comply with the prevailing wage requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund. Recommendation: We recommend that the District acquire understanding of requirements related to expenditure of federal funds on construction and remodeling projects. Response: The District was unaware of the prevailing wage requirements for federally financed contracts in excess of $2,000. The District was under the impression that the prevailing wage requirements only applied to federally financed contracts exceeding $75,000. The District has pursued education on the federal requirements regarding prevailing wage, and will make steps moving forward to ensure compliance with the federal standards relating to prevailing wage of federally financed contracts.
U.S. Department of Education Program Name: Education Stabilization Fund AL No. 84.425 MATERIAL WEAKNESS 2022-002 SPECIAL TESTS AND PROVISIONS Criteria: Per the 2022 OMB Compliance Supplement, ?All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors to work on construction contracts in excess of $2,000 financed by federal assistance funds must be paid wages not less than those established for the locality of the project (prevailing wage rates) by the Department of Labor (DOL) (40 USC 3141?3144, 3146, and 3147). Nonfederal entities shall include in their construction contracts subject to the Wage Rate Requirements (which still may be referenced as the Davis-Bacon Act) a provision that the contractor or subcontractor comply with those requirements and the DOL regulations (29 CFR Part 5, Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contacts Governing Federally Financed and Assisted Construction). This includes a requirement for the contractor or subcontractor to submit to the nonfederal entity weekly, for each week in which any contract work is performed, a copy of the payroll and a statement of compliance (certified payrolls) (29 CFR sections 5.5 and 5.6; the A-102 Common Rule (section 36(i)(5)); OMB Circular A-110 (2 CFR Part 215, Appendix A, Contract Provisions); 2 CFR Part 176, Subpart C; and 2 CFR section 200.326).? Condition: During our testing of the District?s Education Stabilization Fund, we noted the District had a contract for flooring installation that was subject to the prevailing wage rate requirements under 20 USC 1232b; however, the contractor did not pay prevailing wages for the work performed. Questioned Costs: None Context: We noted that the District?s flooring contractor did not pay prevailing wages as required by the Department of Labor for federally-financed contracts. Cause: The District understood the threshold for compliance with the prevailing wage requirements to be more a federally-financed contract exceeding $75,000 rather than federally-financed contracts exceeding $2,000. Effect: The District did not comply with the prevailing wage requirements for the Education Stabilization Fund. Recommendation: We recommend that the District acquire understanding of requirements related to expenditure of federal funds on construction and remodeling projects. Response: The District was unaware of the prevailing wage requirements for federally financed contracts in excess of $2,000. The District was under the impression that the prevailing wage requirements only applied to federally financed contracts exceeding $75,000. The District has pursued education on the federal requirements regarding prevailing wage, and will make steps moving forward to ensure compliance with the federal standards relating to prevailing wage of federally financed contracts.