Finding: District controls did not always ensure compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act for Federally funded construction projects exceeding $2,000. Criteria: The ESSER Fund provides Federal funds for school facility repairs and improvements to reduce the risk of virus transmission and exposure to environmental health hazards and to support student health needs. Title 29, Section 5.5, CFR (Davis-Bacon Act), requires the District to include prevailing wage rate clauses in any construction contract exceeding $2,000 that is financed either wholly or in part by Federal funds and to ensure that contractors and subcontractors pay workers the prevailing wage rates established by the United States Department of Labor. This includes a requirement for the contractor or subcontractor to submit to the District weekly, for each week in which any contract work is performed, a copy of the payroll and a statement of compliance (certified payrolls). The United States Department of Labor established ?prevailing wages? by geographic area and interprets the Davis-Bacon Act to apply to construction, alteration, or repair of a public building or public work. Condition: During the 2021-22 fiscal year, the Board entered into a construction contract for heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) repairs and upgrades at Vernon Middle School for $538,000 and another construction contract for a multi-campus project for similar HVAC repairs and upgrades totaling $251,364. As of June 2022, the District had expended ESSER funds totaling $290,761 and $251,364, respectively, on the two projects. In response to our inquiry, District personnel indicated that the contractors did not submit to the District weekly certified payrolls demonstrating prevailing wage rates were paid. In addition, we noted that the purchase orders, requests for proposal, bid specifications, and contracts for the projects did not contain clauses that required compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act provisions. Subsequent to our inquiry, District personnel obtained from the contractors certified payrolls that demonstrated the prevailing wage rates were paid for these projects. Cause: District personnel were not aware that the Davis-Bacon Act applied to these projects and, therefore, did not include the appropriate wage rate clauses in the applicable procurement documents nor required District personnel to verify that payrolls were received. Effect: Without an appropriate understanding of when to apply the Davis-Bacon Act requirements, there is an increased risk that contractors and subcontractors paid with Federal moneys will not pay workers the prevailing wage rates established by the United States Department of Labor. Recommendation: The District should enhance procedures to ensure that prevailing wage rate clauses are included in any construction contract exceeding $2,000 that is financed either wholly or in part by Federal funds and that wage rates paid by contractors and subcontractors for Federally funded facility projects are directly compared to, and determined to be consistent with, the prevailing wage rates established for the geographic area by the United States Department of Labor. Such enhancements should include appropriate training for staff to understand their responsibility for demonstrating compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act. District Response: The District will enhance its procedures to ensure that it complies with the Davis-Bacon Act.
Finding: The District did not always comply with Federal regulations by properly allocating Title I Program funds to eligible schools. Criteria: Title 34, Section 200.78, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), requires the District to allocate Title I schoolwide program funds to schools identified as eligible and selected to participate, in rank order, on the basis of the total number of children from low-income families in each school. The District is not required to allocate the same per-pupil amount (PPA) to each participating school provided that it allocates higher PPAs to schools with higher concentrations of poverty than to schools with lower concentrations of poverty. Condition: The District annually applies for Title I Program funding and the application includes a budget and an eligibility survey to document the amounts budgeted per participating school. During the 2021-22 fiscal year, the District expended $1,421,172.79 from the Title I Program, including $1,326,039.68 expended for the District?s six elementary, middle, and high schools. As part of our audit, we requested for examination District records supporting the District?s budget allocation amounts to the six schools, and final budget amounts evidencing that the allocations were provided. District records indicated that the ranking of three of the District?s six Title I schools did not agree with the ranking based on the total number of students from low-income families. Specifically, one school with a poverty concentration of 68.51 percent was allocated and received $26,401 less than a school with a lower poverty concentration of 56.36 percent. Additionally, two schools with poverty concentrations of 55.59 percent and 52.50 percent were allocated and received $41,450 and $11,740 less, respectively, than a school with a lower poverty concentration of 44.28 percent. Cause: The District had not established effective procedures for monitoring Title I budgets at participating schools. Effect: The District did not comply with Federal regulations by appropriately allocating Title I Program resources to participating schools in rank order, on the basis of the total number of children from low-income families in each school. As a result, three schools were underallocated $79,591 and educational services were not funded at the required levels. In response to our inquiries, District personnel concurred with the calculated questioned costs. Recommendation: The District should establish procedures for ensuring and documenting that Title I Program resources are properly allocated to schools. In addition, the District should provide documentation to the FDOE supporting the allowability of the questioned costs totaling $79,591 or allocate that amount to the applicable underfunded Title I schools. District Response: The District will enhance its procedures to ensure that Title I schoolwide program resources are properly allocated to schools. The Director of Federal Programs will consult with the Florida Department of Education about the allowability of the questioned costs.
Finding: District controls did not always ensure compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act for Federally funded construction projects exceeding $2,000. Criteria: The ESSER Fund provides Federal funds for school facility repairs and improvements to reduce the risk of virus transmission and exposure to environmental health hazards and to support student health needs. Title 29, Section 5.5, CFR (Davis-Bacon Act), requires the District to include prevailing wage rate clauses in any construction contract exceeding $2,000 that is financed either wholly or in part by Federal funds and to ensure that contractors and subcontractors pay workers the prevailing wage rates established by the United States Department of Labor. This includes a requirement for the contractor or subcontractor to submit to the District weekly, for each week in which any contract work is performed, a copy of the payroll and a statement of compliance (certified payrolls). The United States Department of Labor established ?prevailing wages? by geographic area and interprets the Davis-Bacon Act to apply to construction, alteration, or repair of a public building or public work. Condition: During the 2021-22 fiscal year, the Board entered into a construction contract for heating, ventilation, and air-conditioning (HVAC) repairs and upgrades at Vernon Middle School for $538,000 and another construction contract for a multi-campus project for similar HVAC repairs and upgrades totaling $251,364. As of June 2022, the District had expended ESSER funds totaling $290,761 and $251,364, respectively, on the two projects. In response to our inquiry, District personnel indicated that the contractors did not submit to the District weekly certified payrolls demonstrating prevailing wage rates were paid. In addition, we noted that the purchase orders, requests for proposal, bid specifications, and contracts for the projects did not contain clauses that required compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act provisions. Subsequent to our inquiry, District personnel obtained from the contractors certified payrolls that demonstrated the prevailing wage rates were paid for these projects. Cause: District personnel were not aware that the Davis-Bacon Act applied to these projects and, therefore, did not include the appropriate wage rate clauses in the applicable procurement documents nor required District personnel to verify that payrolls were received. Effect: Without an appropriate understanding of when to apply the Davis-Bacon Act requirements, there is an increased risk that contractors and subcontractors paid with Federal moneys will not pay workers the prevailing wage rates established by the United States Department of Labor. Recommendation: The District should enhance procedures to ensure that prevailing wage rate clauses are included in any construction contract exceeding $2,000 that is financed either wholly or in part by Federal funds and that wage rates paid by contractors and subcontractors for Federally funded facility projects are directly compared to, and determined to be consistent with, the prevailing wage rates established for the geographic area by the United States Department of Labor. Such enhancements should include appropriate training for staff to understand their responsibility for demonstrating compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act. District Response: The District will enhance its procedures to ensure that it complies with the Davis-Bacon Act.
Finding: The District did not always comply with Federal regulations by properly allocating Title I Program funds to eligible schools. Criteria: Title 34, Section 200.78, Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), requires the District to allocate Title I schoolwide program funds to schools identified as eligible and selected to participate, in rank order, on the basis of the total number of children from low-income families in each school. The District is not required to allocate the same per-pupil amount (PPA) to each participating school provided that it allocates higher PPAs to schools with higher concentrations of poverty than to schools with lower concentrations of poverty. Condition: The District annually applies for Title I Program funding and the application includes a budget and an eligibility survey to document the amounts budgeted per participating school. During the 2021-22 fiscal year, the District expended $1,421,172.79 from the Title I Program, including $1,326,039.68 expended for the District?s six elementary, middle, and high schools. As part of our audit, we requested for examination District records supporting the District?s budget allocation amounts to the six schools, and final budget amounts evidencing that the allocations were provided. District records indicated that the ranking of three of the District?s six Title I schools did not agree with the ranking based on the total number of students from low-income families. Specifically, one school with a poverty concentration of 68.51 percent was allocated and received $26,401 less than a school with a lower poverty concentration of 56.36 percent. Additionally, two schools with poverty concentrations of 55.59 percent and 52.50 percent were allocated and received $41,450 and $11,740 less, respectively, than a school with a lower poverty concentration of 44.28 percent. Cause: The District had not established effective procedures for monitoring Title I budgets at participating schools. Effect: The District did not comply with Federal regulations by appropriately allocating Title I Program resources to participating schools in rank order, on the basis of the total number of children from low-income families in each school. As a result, three schools were underallocated $79,591 and educational services were not funded at the required levels. In response to our inquiries, District personnel concurred with the calculated questioned costs. Recommendation: The District should establish procedures for ensuring and documenting that Title I Program resources are properly allocated to schools. In addition, the District should provide documentation to the FDOE supporting the allowability of the questioned costs totaling $79,591 or allocate that amount to the applicable underfunded Title I schools. District Response: The District will enhance its procedures to ensure that Title I schoolwide program resources are properly allocated to schools. The Director of Federal Programs will consult with the Florida Department of Education about the allowability of the questioned costs.