Title 29, U. S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 5, Sub-Part A Davis Bacon and Related Acts Provisions and Procedures (the ?Davis-Bacon Act?), requires that any construction contract in excess of $2,000 that is funded wholly or in part by federal funds include prevailing wage rate clauses. The 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 locality of project (prevailing wage rates) by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the contractor or subcontractor must 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). During fiscal year 2022, the Board entered into two construction project contracts that did not include prevailing wage rate clauses. As of September 30, 2022, the Board had expended $266,813.05 of COVID-19 Education Stabilization Funds (Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief) on these projects. The Board did not have controls in place to ensure the Davis-Bacon Act wage rate requirements were included in construction contracts, therefore, the construction project contract was awarded during the fiscal year that did not include prevailing wage rate clauses nor did the contractors submit weekly certified payrolls to the Board. As a result, the Board is not in compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act as it pertains to wage rate requirements.
Title 29, U. S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 5, Sub-Part A Davis Bacon and Related Acts Provisions and Procedures (the ?Davis-Bacon Act?), requires that any construction contract in excess of $2,000 that is funded wholly or in part by federal funds include prevailing wage rate clauses. The 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 locality of project (prevailing wage rates) by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the contractor or subcontractor must 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). During fiscal year 2022, the Board entered into two construction project contracts that did not include prevailing wage rate clauses. As of September 30, 2022, the Board had expended $266,813.05 of COVID-19 Education Stabilization Funds (Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief) on these projects. The Board did not have controls in place to ensure the Davis-Bacon Act wage rate requirements were included in construction contracts, therefore, the construction project contract was awarded during the fiscal year that did not include prevailing wage rate clauses nor did the contractors submit weekly certified payrolls to the Board. As a result, the Board is not in compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act as it pertains to wage rate requirements.
The Chilton County Board of Education (the ?Board?) prepared an Indirect Cost Proposal in accordance with Title 2 CFR Part 200, ?Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards?, Subpart E, ?Cost Principles?. The Indirect Cost Proposal was approved by the Alabama Department of Education in accordance with the U. S. Department of Education Delegation Agreement #2019-116. An indirect cost rate of 9.62% was approved in the Indirect Cost Proposal for unrestricted programs. This allowed the Board to charge the unrestricted indirect cost rate of 9.62% against the indirect cost base for the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund, one of the subprograms of the Education Stabilization Fund. The Board did not calculate the indirect cost base in accordance with the Indirect Cost Proposal, and thus charged indirect costs in excess of those allowed by the Indirect Cost Proposal. Controls were not in place to ensure that the indirect cost base and indirect costs charged were calculated correctly. As a result, indirect costs were charged against the ESSER fund in excess of what was allowed by the Indirect Cost Proposal.
Title 29, U. S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 5, Sub-Part A Davis Bacon and Related Acts Provisions and Procedures (the ?Davis-Bacon Act?), requires that any construction contract in excess of $2,000 that is funded wholly or in part by federal funds include prevailing wage rate clauses. The 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 locality of project (prevailing wage rates) by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the contractor or subcontractor must 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). During fiscal year 2022, the Board entered into two construction project contracts that did not include prevailing wage rate clauses. As of September 30, 2022, the Board had expended $266,813.05 of COVID-19 Education Stabilization Funds (Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief) on these projects. The Board did not have controls in place to ensure the Davis-Bacon Act wage rate requirements were included in construction contracts, therefore, the construction project contract was awarded during the fiscal year that did not include prevailing wage rate clauses nor did the contractors submit weekly certified payrolls to the Board. As a result, the Board is not in compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act as it pertains to wage rate requirements.
Title 29, U. S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 5, Sub-Part A Davis Bacon and Related Acts Provisions and Procedures (the ?Davis-Bacon Act?), requires that any construction contract in excess of $2,000 that is funded wholly or in part by federal funds include prevailing wage rate clauses. The 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 locality of project (prevailing wage rates) by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the contractor or subcontractor must 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). During fiscal year 2022, the Board entered into two construction project contracts that did not include prevailing wage rate clauses. As of September 30, 2022, the Board had expended $266,813.05 of COVID-19 Education Stabilization Funds (Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief) on these projects. The Board did not have controls in place to ensure the Davis-Bacon Act wage rate requirements were included in construction contracts, therefore, the construction project contract was awarded during the fiscal year that did not include prevailing wage rate clauses nor did the contractors submit weekly certified payrolls to the Board. As a result, the Board is not in compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act as it pertains to wage rate requirements.
The Chilton County Board of Education (the ?Board?) prepared an Indirect Cost Proposal in accordance with Title 2 CFR Part 200, ?Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards?, Subpart E, ?Cost Principles?. The Indirect Cost Proposal was approved by the Alabama Department of Education in accordance with the U. S. Department of Education Delegation Agreement #2019-116. An indirect cost rate of 9.62% was approved in the Indirect Cost Proposal for unrestricted programs. This allowed the Board to charge the unrestricted indirect cost rate of 9.62% against the indirect cost base for the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund, one of the subprograms of the Education Stabilization Fund. The Board did not calculate the indirect cost base in accordance with the Indirect Cost Proposal, and thus charged indirect costs in excess of those allowed by the Indirect Cost Proposal. Controls were not in place to ensure that the indirect cost base and indirect costs charged were calculated correctly. As a result, indirect costs were charged against the ESSER fund in excess of what was allowed by the Indirect Cost Proposal.