Criteria: Per the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities other than states must follow 2 CFR sections 200.313(c) through (e) which require that a control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated (2 CFR section 200.313(d)(3)). Condition and Context: Of the 84 samples selected for inspection from the total population of equipment on hand, 8 of the 84 items selected for testing were tagged with the incorrect Property tag (?Ptag?). During the inspection of the items, we noted the Ptag number on 8 pieces of equipment did not match the equipment description per the purchase order. Cause and Possible Asserted Effect: The equipment was not properly tagged in accordance with the University?s policy to ensure equipment is adequately safeguarded to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Although improperly tagged, the University was able to locate, and KPMG inspected, the 8 pieces of equipment, thereby confirming their existence and that they are secured from theft behind locked doors, and as such, we did not note any instances of noncompliance. Failure to properly tag purchased equipment could result in lost, stolen or damaged equipment not being identified. Identification of questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs related to this finding. Sampling: The sample was not intended to be and was not a statistically valid sample.
Criteria: Per the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities other than states must follow 2 CFR sections 200.313(c) through (e) which require that a control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated (2 CFR section 200.313(d)(3)). Condition and Context: Of the 84 samples selected for inspection from the total population of equipment on hand, 8 of the 84 items selected for testing were tagged with the incorrect Property tag (?Ptag?). During the inspection of the items, we noted the Ptag number on 8 pieces of equipment did not match the equipment description per the purchase order. Cause and Possible Asserted Effect: The equipment was not properly tagged in accordance with the University?s policy to ensure equipment is adequately safeguarded to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Although improperly tagged, the University was able to locate, and KPMG inspected, the 8 pieces of equipment, thereby confirming their existence and that they are secured from theft behind locked doors, and as such, we did not note any instances of noncompliance. Failure to properly tag purchased equipment could result in lost, stolen or damaged equipment not being identified. Identification of questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs related to this finding. Sampling: The sample was not intended to be and was not a statistically valid sample.
Criteria: Per the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities other than states must follow 2 CFR sections 200.313(c) through (e) which require that a control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated (2 CFR section 200.313(d)(3)). Condition and Context: Of the 84 samples selected for inspection from the total population of equipment on hand, 8 of the 84 items selected for testing were tagged with the incorrect Property tag (?Ptag?). During the inspection of the items, we noted the Ptag number on 8 pieces of equipment did not match the equipment description per the purchase order. Cause and Possible Asserted Effect: The equipment was not properly tagged in accordance with the University?s policy to ensure equipment is adequately safeguarded to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Although improperly tagged, the University was able to locate, and KPMG inspected, the 8 pieces of equipment, thereby confirming their existence and that they are secured from theft behind locked doors, and as such, we did not note any instances of noncompliance. Failure to properly tag purchased equipment could result in lost, stolen or damaged equipment not being identified. Identification of questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs related to this finding. Sampling: The sample was not intended to be and was not a statistically valid sample.
Criteria: Per the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities other than states must follow 2 CFR sections 200.313(c) through (e) which require that a control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated (2 CFR section 200.313(d)(3)). Condition and Context: Of the 84 samples selected for inspection from the total population of equipment on hand, 8 of the 84 items selected for testing were tagged with the incorrect Property tag (?Ptag?). During the inspection of the items, we noted the Ptag number on 8 pieces of equipment did not match the equipment description per the purchase order. Cause and Possible Asserted Effect: The equipment was not properly tagged in accordance with the University?s policy to ensure equipment is adequately safeguarded to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Although improperly tagged, the University was able to locate, and KPMG inspected, the 8 pieces of equipment, thereby confirming their existence and that they are secured from theft behind locked doors, and as such, we did not note any instances of noncompliance. Failure to properly tag purchased equipment could result in lost, stolen or damaged equipment not being identified. Identification of questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs related to this finding. Sampling: The sample was not intended to be and was not a statistically valid sample.
Criteria: Per the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities other than states must follow 2 CFR sections 200.313(c) through (e) which require that a control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated (2 CFR section 200.313(d)(3)). Condition and Context: Of the 84 samples selected for inspection from the total population of equipment on hand, 8 of the 84 items selected for testing were tagged with the incorrect Property tag (?Ptag?). During the inspection of the items, we noted the Ptag number on 8 pieces of equipment did not match the equipment description per the purchase order. Cause and Possible Asserted Effect: The equipment was not properly tagged in accordance with the University?s policy to ensure equipment is adequately safeguarded to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Although improperly tagged, the University was able to locate, and KPMG inspected, the 8 pieces of equipment, thereby confirming their existence and that they are secured from theft behind locked doors, and as such, we did not note any instances of noncompliance. Failure to properly tag purchased equipment could result in lost, stolen or damaged equipment not being identified. Identification of questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs related to this finding. Sampling: The sample was not intended to be and was not a statistically valid sample.
Criteria: Per the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities other than states must follow 2 CFR sections 200.313(c) through (e) which require that a control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated (2 CFR section 200.313(d)(3)). Condition and Context: Of the 84 samples selected for inspection from the total population of equipment on hand, 8 of the 84 items selected for testing were tagged with the incorrect Property tag (?Ptag?). During the inspection of the items, we noted the Ptag number on 8 pieces of equipment did not match the equipment description per the purchase order. Cause and Possible Asserted Effect: The equipment was not properly tagged in accordance with the University?s policy to ensure equipment is adequately safeguarded to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Although improperly tagged, the University was able to locate, and KPMG inspected, the 8 pieces of equipment, thereby confirming their existence and that they are secured from theft behind locked doors, and as such, we did not note any instances of noncompliance. Failure to properly tag purchased equipment could result in lost, stolen or damaged equipment not being identified. Identification of questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs related to this finding. Sampling: The sample was not intended to be and was not a statistically valid sample.
Criteria: Per the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities other than states must follow 2 CFR sections 200.313(c) through (e) which require that a control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated (2 CFR section 200.313(d)(3)). Condition and Context: Of the 84 samples selected for inspection from the total population of equipment on hand, 8 of the 84 items selected for testing were tagged with the incorrect Property tag (?Ptag?). During the inspection of the items, we noted the Ptag number on 8 pieces of equipment did not match the equipment description per the purchase order. Cause and Possible Asserted Effect: The equipment was not properly tagged in accordance with the University?s policy to ensure equipment is adequately safeguarded to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Although improperly tagged, the University was able to locate, and KPMG inspected, the 8 pieces of equipment, thereby confirming their existence and that they are secured from theft behind locked doors, and as such, we did not note any instances of noncompliance. Failure to properly tag purchased equipment could result in lost, stolen or damaged equipment not being identified. Identification of questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs related to this finding. Sampling: The sample was not intended to be and was not a statistically valid sample.
Criteria: Per the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities other than states must follow 2 CFR sections 200.313(c) through (e) which require that a control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated (2 CFR section 200.313(d)(3)). Condition and Context: Of the 84 samples selected for inspection from the total population of equipment on hand, 8 of the 84 items selected for testing were tagged with the incorrect Property tag (?Ptag?). During the inspection of the items, we noted the Ptag number on 8 pieces of equipment did not match the equipment description per the purchase order. Cause and Possible Asserted Effect: The equipment was not properly tagged in accordance with the University?s policy to ensure equipment is adequately safeguarded to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Although improperly tagged, the University was able to locate, and KPMG inspected, the 8 pieces of equipment, thereby confirming their existence and that they are secured from theft behind locked doors, and as such, we did not note any instances of noncompliance. Failure to properly tag purchased equipment could result in lost, stolen or damaged equipment not being identified. Identification of questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs related to this finding. Sampling: The sample was not intended to be and was not a statistically valid sample.
Criteria: Per the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities other than states must follow 2 CFR sections 200.313(c) through (e) which require that a control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated (2 CFR section 200.313(d)(3)). Condition and Context: Of the 84 samples selected for inspection from the total population of equipment on hand, 8 of the 84 items selected for testing were tagged with the incorrect Property tag (?Ptag?). During the inspection of the items, we noted the Ptag number on 8 pieces of equipment did not match the equipment description per the purchase order. Cause and Possible Asserted Effect: The equipment was not properly tagged in accordance with the University?s policy to ensure equipment is adequately safeguarded to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Although improperly tagged, the University was able to locate, and KPMG inspected, the 8 pieces of equipment, thereby confirming their existence and that they are secured from theft behind locked doors, and as such, we did not note any instances of noncompliance. Failure to properly tag purchased equipment could result in lost, stolen or damaged equipment not being identified. Identification of questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs related to this finding. Sampling: The sample was not intended to be and was not a statistically valid sample.
Criteria: Per the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities other than states must follow 2 CFR sections 200.313(c) through (e) which require that a control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated (2 CFR section 200.313(d)(3)). Condition and Context: Of the 84 samples selected for inspection from the total population of equipment on hand, 8 of the 84 items selected for testing were tagged with the incorrect Property tag (?Ptag?). During the inspection of the items, we noted the Ptag number on 8 pieces of equipment did not match the equipment description per the purchase order. Cause and Possible Asserted Effect: The equipment was not properly tagged in accordance with the University?s policy to ensure equipment is adequately safeguarded to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Although improperly tagged, the University was able to locate, and KPMG inspected, the 8 pieces of equipment, thereby confirming their existence and that they are secured from theft behind locked doors, and as such, we did not note any instances of noncompliance. Failure to properly tag purchased equipment could result in lost, stolen or damaged equipment not being identified. Identification of questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs related to this finding. Sampling: The sample was not intended to be and was not a statistically valid sample.