Finding 2022-001: Allowable Costs Material weakness in internal controls over compliance with Activities Allowable and Allowable Cost and Noncompliance U.S. Department of Treasury; Coronavirus State Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) passed through Fresno County. AL No. 21.027. Questioned Cost: $2,000,000 How the Questioned Cost was Computed: The Fresno County Fire protection District (FCFPD) represented to Fresno County that they responded to approximately 13,339 calls during the period of March 1, 2021 and March 1, 2022 and that approximate 3,170 of those calls were for in-home life-threatening medical emergencies. That calculates to 23.76% of the total calls being for in-home life-threatening medical emergencies. The total cost of payroll during that time was $20,188,934 and the total cost of fuel was $298,358. The District used the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System to accumulate the information used in the calculation of the calls for service and to determine the number of the calls related to life-threatening medical emergencies. Cuttone & Mastro (C&M) was provided the raw data and sorted the data to determine whether the numbers used were accurate. C&M addressed the question of whether all in-home life-threatening medical emergencies calls should be used in the calculation of the costs to be reimbursed or whether only the calls related to COVID-19. The FCFPD does not have the ability to determine how many of the in-home life-threatening medical emergency?s calls were for COVID-19. C&M were told that the responders had to take precautions on all calls because of COVID-19. However, because we were unable to determine the accuracy of the percentage of calls being related to COVID-19 we have reported the total amount paid as questioned. Condition: C&M addressed the question of whether all in-home life-threatening medical emergencies calls should be used in the calculation of the costs to be reimbursed or whether only the calls related to COVID-19. The FCFPD does not have the ability to determine how many of the in-home life-threatening medical emergency?s calls were for COVID-19. In addition, It does not appear key management have sufficient understanding of compliance with federal statues, regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal awards and that program information from federal and other agencies flows to appropriate program management personnel. Criteria: In the Final Rule, The Department of Treasury determined that costs for emergency medical response costs provided directly to an individual due to COVID-19 infection or a potential infection is an enumerated eligible use of SLFRF. In addition, FCFPD represent to the Fresno County that 3,174 calls of their total 13,339 calls for assistance were identified as in-home life-threatening medical services related to COVID-19 emergencies that created a financial burden on the District due to several factors such as staffing levels, overtime pay, increased fuel costs for those calls that exposed or had the potential to expose their first responders to the virus. This information was also provided to the County by email dated Friday, March 4, 2022 from Dustin Hail, in which Chief Hail stated that in the period of March 1, 2021 through March 1, 2022, ?Total emergency responses 13,339 of that 23.8% were treated as life threatening Covid-19 emergencies.? Cause: The FCFPD does not have the ability to determine how many of the in-home life-threatening medical emergency?s calls were for COVID-19. Also, the FCFP?s internal control processes related to federal awards were circumvented by management. Effect: After consultation with a representative of Fresno County who stated the Fresno County staff believes that the FCFPD would be in the best position to produce back up information. The FCFPD must have documentation for its calls that would specify whether each call was a call responding to a ?life threatening Covid-19 emergency, and that Fresno County requests this information. C&M considered it necessary to report this as a questioned cost. Recommendation: C&M recommends that FCFPD obtain clarification on whether the need to take precautions on all in-home life-threatening medical emergencies calls because of COVID-19 created a financial burden on the FCFPD due to several factors such as staffing levels, overtime pay, increased fuel costs for those calls that exposed or had the potential to expose their first responders to the virus. In addition, C&M recommends the FCFPD provide the appropriate training for all staff involved in the administration of federal awards to become knowledgeable of the internal controls designed. View of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and has provided the accompanying corrective action plan
Finding 2022-002: Reporting Material weakness in internal control over Reporting and Noncompliance U.S. Department of Treasury; Coronavirus State Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) passed through Fresno County. AL No. 21.027. Questioned Cost: Not applicable How the Questioned Cost was Computed: Not applicable Condition: The FCFPD did not submit the required quarterly program Expenditure Report, Annual Performance Report or the Final Report. Criteria: The conditions of the Award include 3 reporting requirements as follows: A. Quarterly Program Expenditure Report: Submit to Fresno County in writing at the execution of the Agreement, Quarterly Program Expenditure Reports through the term of the Agreement. The reports shall contain, but are not limited to, the information described in Exhibit C of the Agreement and must include a statement, signed by FCFPD, indicating that all expenditures in the report comply with the Interim Rule and the Final Rule, as applicable, and ARPA guidelines for the SLFRF, as set forth by the Department of Treasury. Quarterly expenditure reports shall be submitted to Fresno County no later than fifteen (15) days after the end of each quarter listed below for the term of this Agreement, beginning with the first quarter ending after the effective date. B. Annual Performance Report: Within fifteen (15) days after each June 30, FCFPD shall submit one "Annual Performance Report" to the Fresno County, covering all performance by FCFPD under the Agreement for the fiscal year ending that June 30. The report shall contain, but not limited to, the information contained in Exhibit D of the Agreement. C. Final Report: A Final Program Report shall be submitted to Fresno County within thirty (30) days upon completion of the Program. A Final Report shall include an accounting of all costs and expenses incurred by FCFPD, and any other information as the Fresno County deems necessary to facilitate closeout of the Program, and ensure Fresno County's obligations and requirements under the SLFRF Program are met. The Final Program Report is not complete until Fresno County has delivered to FCFPD written acceptance of the Final Program Report. Cause: Internal controls over preparation of complete and accurate reporting were not properly designed to ensure reports are submitted accurately and timely. Effect: Required reports were not submitted. Recommendation: C&M recommends that FCFPD develop and implement a more robust system for the preparation and submission of reporting. The process should include a monitoring of all award contracts for reporting and other compliance conditions and perhaps a secondary review and approval of the report and underlying data by somebody other than the preparer. View of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and has provided the accompanying corrective action plan
Finding 2022-003: Procurement & Suspension and Debarment Material weakness in internal control over Procurement & Suspension and Debarment and Noncompliance U.S. Department of Treasury; Coronavirus State Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) passed through Fresno County. AL No. 21.027. Questioned Cost: Not applicable How the Questioned Cost was Computed: Not applicable Condition: C&M identified that the FCFPD did not have adequate written policies and did not maintain a written code of standard selection procedures for procurement transactions that included all the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. C&M identified a lack of adequate knowledge and experience of key procurement managers in light of responsibilities for procurements for Federal awards. In addition, the costs charged to the program included fuel cost incurred by FCFPD. The fuel cost had been procured from a couple vendors. The FCFPD stated the selection of these vendors was based on past experience and was not able to provide C&M with support of a noncompetitive procurement process that complies with 2 CFR 200 standards. Also, there was no evidence that FCFPD verified that vendors were not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transactions before entering into the transaction with them. Criteria: The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 CFR Part 200, section 318(i) (Uniform Guidance) states that the non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. The records will include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contractor type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. In addition, the Uniform Guidance, 2 CFR Part 200, section 200.118 states that the non-Federal entity must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326 and must use their own documented procurement procedures that must conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. Cause: The FCFPD?s procurement policy is limited to establishing a guideline on spending and purchasing authority limits. There was a lack of understanding of federal laws and regulations relating to this requirement. Management did not have an understanding of the requirements for procurement and suspension and debarment. Effect: Procurements were made following a noncompetitive process that were not adequately documented and FCFPD could enter into transactions with vendors that are suspended of debarred. Costs charged to the Program could be disallowed. Recommendation: C&M recommends the FCFPD establish written procurement policies and procedures as required by the Uniform Guidance. The FCFPD should consider implementation of the following internal controls: 1. Review the Uniform Guidance and update the current policies and procedures to include all the requirements not part of the FCFPD?s current policies. 2. Make available the updated policies and procedures to responsible management and employees. 3. Management should monitor compliance and performance with the policies and procedures. View of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and has provided the accompanying corrective action plan.
Finding 2022-001: Allowable Costs Material weakness in internal controls over compliance with Activities Allowable and Allowable Cost and Noncompliance U.S. Department of Treasury; Coronavirus State Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) passed through Fresno County. AL No. 21.027. Questioned Cost: $2,000,000 How the Questioned Cost was Computed: The Fresno County Fire protection District (FCFPD) represented to Fresno County that they responded to approximately 13,339 calls during the period of March 1, 2021 and March 1, 2022 and that approximate 3,170 of those calls were for in-home life-threatening medical emergencies. That calculates to 23.76% of the total calls being for in-home life-threatening medical emergencies. The total cost of payroll during that time was $20,188,934 and the total cost of fuel was $298,358. The District used the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System to accumulate the information used in the calculation of the calls for service and to determine the number of the calls related to life-threatening medical emergencies. Cuttone & Mastro (C&M) was provided the raw data and sorted the data to determine whether the numbers used were accurate. C&M addressed the question of whether all in-home life-threatening medical emergencies calls should be used in the calculation of the costs to be reimbursed or whether only the calls related to COVID-19. The FCFPD does not have the ability to determine how many of the in-home life-threatening medical emergency?s calls were for COVID-19. C&M were told that the responders had to take precautions on all calls because of COVID-19. However, because we were unable to determine the accuracy of the percentage of calls being related to COVID-19 we have reported the total amount paid as questioned. Condition: C&M addressed the question of whether all in-home life-threatening medical emergencies calls should be used in the calculation of the costs to be reimbursed or whether only the calls related to COVID-19. The FCFPD does not have the ability to determine how many of the in-home life-threatening medical emergency?s calls were for COVID-19. In addition, It does not appear key management have sufficient understanding of compliance with federal statues, regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal awards and that program information from federal and other agencies flows to appropriate program management personnel. Criteria: In the Final Rule, The Department of Treasury determined that costs for emergency medical response costs provided directly to an individual due to COVID-19 infection or a potential infection is an enumerated eligible use of SLFRF. In addition, FCFPD represent to the Fresno County that 3,174 calls of their total 13,339 calls for assistance were identified as in-home life-threatening medical services related to COVID-19 emergencies that created a financial burden on the District due to several factors such as staffing levels, overtime pay, increased fuel costs for those calls that exposed or had the potential to expose their first responders to the virus. This information was also provided to the County by email dated Friday, March 4, 2022 from Dustin Hail, in which Chief Hail stated that in the period of March 1, 2021 through March 1, 2022, ?Total emergency responses 13,339 of that 23.8% were treated as life threatening Covid-19 emergencies.? Cause: The FCFPD does not have the ability to determine how many of the in-home life-threatening medical emergency?s calls were for COVID-19. Also, the FCFP?s internal control processes related to federal awards were circumvented by management. Effect: After consultation with a representative of Fresno County who stated the Fresno County staff believes that the FCFPD would be in the best position to produce back up information. The FCFPD must have documentation for its calls that would specify whether each call was a call responding to a ?life threatening Covid-19 emergency, and that Fresno County requests this information. C&M considered it necessary to report this as a questioned cost. Recommendation: C&M recommends that FCFPD obtain clarification on whether the need to take precautions on all in-home life-threatening medical emergencies calls because of COVID-19 created a financial burden on the FCFPD due to several factors such as staffing levels, overtime pay, increased fuel costs for those calls that exposed or had the potential to expose their first responders to the virus. In addition, C&M recommends the FCFPD provide the appropriate training for all staff involved in the administration of federal awards to become knowledgeable of the internal controls designed. View of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and has provided the accompanying corrective action plan
Finding 2022-002: Reporting Material weakness in internal control over Reporting and Noncompliance U.S. Department of Treasury; Coronavirus State Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) passed through Fresno County. AL No. 21.027. Questioned Cost: Not applicable How the Questioned Cost was Computed: Not applicable Condition: The FCFPD did not submit the required quarterly program Expenditure Report, Annual Performance Report or the Final Report. Criteria: The conditions of the Award include 3 reporting requirements as follows: A. Quarterly Program Expenditure Report: Submit to Fresno County in writing at the execution of the Agreement, Quarterly Program Expenditure Reports through the term of the Agreement. The reports shall contain, but are not limited to, the information described in Exhibit C of the Agreement and must include a statement, signed by FCFPD, indicating that all expenditures in the report comply with the Interim Rule and the Final Rule, as applicable, and ARPA guidelines for the SLFRF, as set forth by the Department of Treasury. Quarterly expenditure reports shall be submitted to Fresno County no later than fifteen (15) days after the end of each quarter listed below for the term of this Agreement, beginning with the first quarter ending after the effective date. B. Annual Performance Report: Within fifteen (15) days after each June 30, FCFPD shall submit one "Annual Performance Report" to the Fresno County, covering all performance by FCFPD under the Agreement for the fiscal year ending that June 30. The report shall contain, but not limited to, the information contained in Exhibit D of the Agreement. C. Final Report: A Final Program Report shall be submitted to Fresno County within thirty (30) days upon completion of the Program. A Final Report shall include an accounting of all costs and expenses incurred by FCFPD, and any other information as the Fresno County deems necessary to facilitate closeout of the Program, and ensure Fresno County's obligations and requirements under the SLFRF Program are met. The Final Program Report is not complete until Fresno County has delivered to FCFPD written acceptance of the Final Program Report. Cause: Internal controls over preparation of complete and accurate reporting were not properly designed to ensure reports are submitted accurately and timely. Effect: Required reports were not submitted. Recommendation: C&M recommends that FCFPD develop and implement a more robust system for the preparation and submission of reporting. The process should include a monitoring of all award contracts for reporting and other compliance conditions and perhaps a secondary review and approval of the report and underlying data by somebody other than the preparer. View of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and has provided the accompanying corrective action plan
Finding 2022-003: Procurement & Suspension and Debarment Material weakness in internal control over Procurement & Suspension and Debarment and Noncompliance U.S. Department of Treasury; Coronavirus State Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) passed through Fresno County. AL No. 21.027. Questioned Cost: Not applicable How the Questioned Cost was Computed: Not applicable Condition: C&M identified that the FCFPD did not have adequate written policies and did not maintain a written code of standard selection procedures for procurement transactions that included all the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. C&M identified a lack of adequate knowledge and experience of key procurement managers in light of responsibilities for procurements for Federal awards. In addition, the costs charged to the program included fuel cost incurred by FCFPD. The fuel cost had been procured from a couple vendors. The FCFPD stated the selection of these vendors was based on past experience and was not able to provide C&M with support of a noncompetitive procurement process that complies with 2 CFR 200 standards. Also, there was no evidence that FCFPD verified that vendors were not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transactions before entering into the transaction with them. Criteria: The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 CFR Part 200, section 318(i) (Uniform Guidance) states that the non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. The records will include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contractor type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. In addition, the Uniform Guidance, 2 CFR Part 200, section 200.118 states that the non-Federal entity must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326 and must use their own documented procurement procedures that must conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. Cause: The FCFPD?s procurement policy is limited to establishing a guideline on spending and purchasing authority limits. There was a lack of understanding of federal laws and regulations relating to this requirement. Management did not have an understanding of the requirements for procurement and suspension and debarment. Effect: Procurements were made following a noncompetitive process that were not adequately documented and FCFPD could enter into transactions with vendors that are suspended of debarred. Costs charged to the Program could be disallowed. Recommendation: C&M recommends the FCFPD establish written procurement policies and procedures as required by the Uniform Guidance. The FCFPD should consider implementation of the following internal controls: 1. Review the Uniform Guidance and update the current policies and procedures to include all the requirements not part of the FCFPD?s current policies. 2. Make available the updated policies and procedures to responsible management and employees. 3. Management should monitor compliance and performance with the policies and procedures. View of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and has provided the accompanying corrective action plan.