Audit 7231

FY End
2021-12-31
Total Expended
$3.04M
Findings
20
Programs
20
Organization: Porter County (IN)
Year: 2021 Accepted: 2023-12-18
Auditor: Forvis LLP

Organization Exclusion Status:

Checking exclusion status...

Findings

ID Ref Severity Repeat Requirement
5452 2021-003 Material Weakness - I
5453 2021-004 Material Weakness - E
5454 2021-003 Material Weakness - I
5455 2021-004 Material Weakness - E
5456 2021-003 Material Weakness - I
5457 2021-004 Material Weakness - E
5458 2021-003 Material Weakness - I
5459 2021-004 Material Weakness - E
5460 2021-003 Material Weakness - I
5461 2021-004 Material Weakness - E
581894 2021-003 Material Weakness - I
581895 2021-004 Material Weakness - E
581896 2021-003 Material Weakness - I
581897 2021-004 Material Weakness - E
581898 2021-003 Material Weakness - I
581899 2021-004 Material Weakness - E
581900 2021-003 Material Weakness - I
581901 2021-004 Material Weakness - E
581902 2021-003 Material Weakness - I
581903 2021-004 Material Weakness - E

Contacts

Name Title Type
MC6JU39EU5W3 Karen Martin Auditee
2194653445 Scott Termine Auditor
No contacts on file

Notes to SEFA

Accounting Policies: 1. The accompanying schedule of expenditures of federal awards (Schedule) includes the federal award activity of Porter County, Indiana (County) under programs of the federal government for the year ended December 31, 2021. 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 the County, it is not intended to and does not present the financial position, changes in net position or cash flows of the County. 2. Expenditures reported on the Schedule are reported on the accrual 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. The County has elected not to use the 10 percent de minimis indirect cost rate allowed under the Uniform Guidance. 3. The County had no federal loans that they were administering as of December 31, 2021. De Minimis Rate Used: N Rate Explanation: The auditee did not use the de minimis cost rate.

Finding Details

Federal Program Name: Highway Planning and Construction Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Assistance Listing Title and Number: Highway Planning and Construction Program, 20.205 Award Year: 2014, 2015, 2018 Criteria or Specific Requirement: Under Uniform Guidance compliance requirements for Procurement (2 CFR 200.318(i)), contract files must be sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. In cases where competition was limited, such as scenarios where specific qualifications and competence are required, the files should provide evidence that the limitation on competition was justified. Condition: The County entered into various professional services contracts for engineering and consulting services for its highway grant programs but did not maintain appropriate documentation to support its procurement decisions. Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During our testing of procurement requirements, 3 out of 3 projects selected for testing included contracts for engineering/consulting services. For 2 of the 3 contracts, the County selected based on qualifications/competence established by the state Department of Transportation rather than a formal RFP process but did not have appropriate documentation as evidence of their basis for conclusion. The other contract tested was subject to an RFP process but did not have appropriate documentation to support how the chosen firm was selected. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Effect: Contracts were approved without appropriate documentation to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. Cause: Adequate supporting documentation on the procurements was not obtained or maintained within project or vendor files due to oversight in administration of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the County revisit controls over this compliance requirement to ensure that appropriate documentation is gathered and retained within its procurement files to support all Federally funded purchasing decisions. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: See corrective action plan prepared by management attached.
Federal Program Name: Highway Planning and Construction Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Assistance Listing Title and Number: Highway Planning and Construction Program, 20.205 Award Year: 2014, 2015, 2018 Criteria or Specific Requirement: In order to ensure compliance with Equipment and Real Property Management requirements under the Uniform Guidance, management must establish controls so that records properly track federal property and equipment separate from non-federal property and equipment. Condition: The County has various real property (roads and bridges) that were funded by Federal awards. While its asset records are designed to capture and identify Federal participation, that field within its road and bridge asset listing has not been populated. Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During our testing of the three highway grant funded projects for 2021, we attempted to trace the capitalizable portion of Federal expenses back to capital asset records. We noted that for all three projects, the asset listing did not identify the related road/bridge assets as being Federally funded. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Effect: The County asset listing for road and bridge assets is not being maintained in a manner that complies with Federal real property management requirements. Because it has not identified in the asset records which road and bridge assets include Federal participation, the County would need to revisit and update the listing to ensure compliance moving forward. Cause: Sufficient detail in the capital asset listing was not maintained due to an oversight in administration of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the County revisit its road and bridge asset records to ensure that Federally funded real property is identified. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: See corrective action plan prepared by management attached.
Federal Program Name: Highway Planning and Construction Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Assistance Listing Title and Number: Highway Planning and Construction Program, 20.205 Award Year: 2014, 2015, 2018 Criteria or Specific Requirement: Under Uniform Guidance compliance requirements for Procurement (2 CFR 200.318(i)), contract files must be sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. In cases where competition was limited, such as scenarios where specific qualifications and competence are required, the files should provide evidence that the limitation on competition was justified. Condition: The County entered into various professional services contracts for engineering and consulting services for its highway grant programs but did not maintain appropriate documentation to support its procurement decisions. Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During our testing of procurement requirements, 3 out of 3 projects selected for testing included contracts for engineering/consulting services. For 2 of the 3 contracts, the County selected based on qualifications/competence established by the state Department of Transportation rather than a formal RFP process but did not have appropriate documentation as evidence of their basis for conclusion. The other contract tested was subject to an RFP process but did not have appropriate documentation to support how the chosen firm was selected. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Effect: Contracts were approved without appropriate documentation to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. Cause: Adequate supporting documentation on the procurements was not obtained or maintained within project or vendor files due to oversight in administration of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the County revisit controls over this compliance requirement to ensure that appropriate documentation is gathered and retained within its procurement files to support all Federally funded purchasing decisions. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: See corrective action plan prepared by management attached.
Federal Program Name: Highway Planning and Construction Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Assistance Listing Title and Number: Highway Planning and Construction Program, 20.205 Award Year: 2014, 2015, 2018 Criteria or Specific Requirement: In order to ensure compliance with Equipment and Real Property Management requirements under the Uniform Guidance, management must establish controls so that records properly track federal property and equipment separate from non-federal property and equipment. Condition: The County has various real property (roads and bridges) that were funded by Federal awards. While its asset records are designed to capture and identify Federal participation, that field within its road and bridge asset listing has not been populated. Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During our testing of the three highway grant funded projects for 2021, we attempted to trace the capitalizable portion of Federal expenses back to capital asset records. We noted that for all three projects, the asset listing did not identify the related road/bridge assets as being Federally funded. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Effect: The County asset listing for road and bridge assets is not being maintained in a manner that complies with Federal real property management requirements. Because it has not identified in the asset records which road and bridge assets include Federal participation, the County would need to revisit and update the listing to ensure compliance moving forward. Cause: Sufficient detail in the capital asset listing was not maintained due to an oversight in administration of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the County revisit its road and bridge asset records to ensure that Federally funded real property is identified. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: See corrective action plan prepared by management attached.
Federal Program Name: Highway Planning and Construction Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Assistance Listing Title and Number: Highway Planning and Construction Program, 20.205 Award Year: 2014, 2015, 2018 Criteria or Specific Requirement: Under Uniform Guidance compliance requirements for Procurement (2 CFR 200.318(i)), contract files must be sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. In cases where competition was limited, such as scenarios where specific qualifications and competence are required, the files should provide evidence that the limitation on competition was justified. Condition: The County entered into various professional services contracts for engineering and consulting services for its highway grant programs but did not maintain appropriate documentation to support its procurement decisions. Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During our testing of procurement requirements, 3 out of 3 projects selected for testing included contracts for engineering/consulting services. For 2 of the 3 contracts, the County selected based on qualifications/competence established by the state Department of Transportation rather than a formal RFP process but did not have appropriate documentation as evidence of their basis for conclusion. The other contract tested was subject to an RFP process but did not have appropriate documentation to support how the chosen firm was selected. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Effect: Contracts were approved without appropriate documentation to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. Cause: Adequate supporting documentation on the procurements was not obtained or maintained within project or vendor files due to oversight in administration of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the County revisit controls over this compliance requirement to ensure that appropriate documentation is gathered and retained within its procurement files to support all Federally funded purchasing decisions. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: See corrective action plan prepared by management attached.
Federal Program Name: Highway Planning and Construction Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Assistance Listing Title and Number: Highway Planning and Construction Program, 20.205 Award Year: 2014, 2015, 2018 Criteria or Specific Requirement: In order to ensure compliance with Equipment and Real Property Management requirements under the Uniform Guidance, management must establish controls so that records properly track federal property and equipment separate from non-federal property and equipment. Condition: The County has various real property (roads and bridges) that were funded by Federal awards. While its asset records are designed to capture and identify Federal participation, that field within its road and bridge asset listing has not been populated. Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During our testing of the three highway grant funded projects for 2021, we attempted to trace the capitalizable portion of Federal expenses back to capital asset records. We noted that for all three projects, the asset listing did not identify the related road/bridge assets as being Federally funded. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Effect: The County asset listing for road and bridge assets is not being maintained in a manner that complies with Federal real property management requirements. Because it has not identified in the asset records which road and bridge assets include Federal participation, the County would need to revisit and update the listing to ensure compliance moving forward. Cause: Sufficient detail in the capital asset listing was not maintained due to an oversight in administration of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the County revisit its road and bridge asset records to ensure that Federally funded real property is identified. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: See corrective action plan prepared by management attached.
Federal Program Name: Highway Planning and Construction Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Assistance Listing Title and Number: Highway Planning and Construction Program, 20.205 Award Year: 2014, 2015, 2018 Criteria or Specific Requirement: Under Uniform Guidance compliance requirements for Procurement (2 CFR 200.318(i)), contract files must be sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. In cases where competition was limited, such as scenarios where specific qualifications and competence are required, the files should provide evidence that the limitation on competition was justified. Condition: The County entered into various professional services contracts for engineering and consulting services for its highway grant programs but did not maintain appropriate documentation to support its procurement decisions. Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During our testing of procurement requirements, 3 out of 3 projects selected for testing included contracts for engineering/consulting services. For 2 of the 3 contracts, the County selected based on qualifications/competence established by the state Department of Transportation rather than a formal RFP process but did not have appropriate documentation as evidence of their basis for conclusion. The other contract tested was subject to an RFP process but did not have appropriate documentation to support how the chosen firm was selected. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Effect: Contracts were approved without appropriate documentation to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. Cause: Adequate supporting documentation on the procurements was not obtained or maintained within project or vendor files due to oversight in administration of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the County revisit controls over this compliance requirement to ensure that appropriate documentation is gathered and retained within its procurement files to support all Federally funded purchasing decisions. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: See corrective action plan prepared by management attached.
Federal Program Name: Highway Planning and Construction Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Assistance Listing Title and Number: Highway Planning and Construction Program, 20.205 Award Year: 2014, 2015, 2018 Criteria or Specific Requirement: In order to ensure compliance with Equipment and Real Property Management requirements under the Uniform Guidance, management must establish controls so that records properly track federal property and equipment separate from non-federal property and equipment. Condition: The County has various real property (roads and bridges) that were funded by Federal awards. While its asset records are designed to capture and identify Federal participation, that field within its road and bridge asset listing has not been populated. Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During our testing of the three highway grant funded projects for 2021, we attempted to trace the capitalizable portion of Federal expenses back to capital asset records. We noted that for all three projects, the asset listing did not identify the related road/bridge assets as being Federally funded. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Effect: The County asset listing for road and bridge assets is not being maintained in a manner that complies with Federal real property management requirements. Because it has not identified in the asset records which road and bridge assets include Federal participation, the County would need to revisit and update the listing to ensure compliance moving forward. Cause: Sufficient detail in the capital asset listing was not maintained due to an oversight in administration of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the County revisit its road and bridge asset records to ensure that Federally funded real property is identified. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: See corrective action plan prepared by management attached.
Federal Program Name: Highway Planning and Construction Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Assistance Listing Title and Number: Highway Planning and Construction Program, 20.205 Award Year: 2014, 2015, 2018 Criteria or Specific Requirement: Under Uniform Guidance compliance requirements for Procurement (2 CFR 200.318(i)), contract files must be sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. In cases where competition was limited, such as scenarios where specific qualifications and competence are required, the files should provide evidence that the limitation on competition was justified. Condition: The County entered into various professional services contracts for engineering and consulting services for its highway grant programs but did not maintain appropriate documentation to support its procurement decisions. Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During our testing of procurement requirements, 3 out of 3 projects selected for testing included contracts for engineering/consulting services. For 2 of the 3 contracts, the County selected based on qualifications/competence established by the state Department of Transportation rather than a formal RFP process but did not have appropriate documentation as evidence of their basis for conclusion. The other contract tested was subject to an RFP process but did not have appropriate documentation to support how the chosen firm was selected. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Effect: Contracts were approved without appropriate documentation to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. Cause: Adequate supporting documentation on the procurements was not obtained or maintained within project or vendor files due to oversight in administration of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the County revisit controls over this compliance requirement to ensure that appropriate documentation is gathered and retained within its procurement files to support all Federally funded purchasing decisions. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: See corrective action plan prepared by management attached.
Federal Program Name: Highway Planning and Construction Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Assistance Listing Title and Number: Highway Planning and Construction Program, 20.205 Award Year: 2014, 2015, 2018 Criteria or Specific Requirement: In order to ensure compliance with Equipment and Real Property Management requirements under the Uniform Guidance, management must establish controls so that records properly track federal property and equipment separate from non-federal property and equipment. Condition: The County has various real property (roads and bridges) that were funded by Federal awards. While its asset records are designed to capture and identify Federal participation, that field within its road and bridge asset listing has not been populated. Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During our testing of the three highway grant funded projects for 2021, we attempted to trace the capitalizable portion of Federal expenses back to capital asset records. We noted that for all three projects, the asset listing did not identify the related road/bridge assets as being Federally funded. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Effect: The County asset listing for road and bridge assets is not being maintained in a manner that complies with Federal real property management requirements. Because it has not identified in the asset records which road and bridge assets include Federal participation, the County would need to revisit and update the listing to ensure compliance moving forward. Cause: Sufficient detail in the capital asset listing was not maintained due to an oversight in administration of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the County revisit its road and bridge asset records to ensure that Federally funded real property is identified. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: See corrective action plan prepared by management attached.
Federal Program Name: Highway Planning and Construction Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Assistance Listing Title and Number: Highway Planning and Construction Program, 20.205 Award Year: 2014, 2015, 2018 Criteria or Specific Requirement: Under Uniform Guidance compliance requirements for Procurement (2 CFR 200.318(i)), contract files must be sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. In cases where competition was limited, such as scenarios where specific qualifications and competence are required, the files should provide evidence that the limitation on competition was justified. Condition: The County entered into various professional services contracts for engineering and consulting services for its highway grant programs but did not maintain appropriate documentation to support its procurement decisions. Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During our testing of procurement requirements, 3 out of 3 projects selected for testing included contracts for engineering/consulting services. For 2 of the 3 contracts, the County selected based on qualifications/competence established by the state Department of Transportation rather than a formal RFP process but did not have appropriate documentation as evidence of their basis for conclusion. The other contract tested was subject to an RFP process but did not have appropriate documentation to support how the chosen firm was selected. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Effect: Contracts were approved without appropriate documentation to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. Cause: Adequate supporting documentation on the procurements was not obtained or maintained within project or vendor files due to oversight in administration of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the County revisit controls over this compliance requirement to ensure that appropriate documentation is gathered and retained within its procurement files to support all Federally funded purchasing decisions. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: See corrective action plan prepared by management attached.
Federal Program Name: Highway Planning and Construction Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Assistance Listing Title and Number: Highway Planning and Construction Program, 20.205 Award Year: 2014, 2015, 2018 Criteria or Specific Requirement: In order to ensure compliance with Equipment and Real Property Management requirements under the Uniform Guidance, management must establish controls so that records properly track federal property and equipment separate from non-federal property and equipment. Condition: The County has various real property (roads and bridges) that were funded by Federal awards. While its asset records are designed to capture and identify Federal participation, that field within its road and bridge asset listing has not been populated. Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During our testing of the three highway grant funded projects for 2021, we attempted to trace the capitalizable portion of Federal expenses back to capital asset records. We noted that for all three projects, the asset listing did not identify the related road/bridge assets as being Federally funded. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Effect: The County asset listing for road and bridge assets is not being maintained in a manner that complies with Federal real property management requirements. Because it has not identified in the asset records which road and bridge assets include Federal participation, the County would need to revisit and update the listing to ensure compliance moving forward. Cause: Sufficient detail in the capital asset listing was not maintained due to an oversight in administration of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the County revisit its road and bridge asset records to ensure that Federally funded real property is identified. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: See corrective action plan prepared by management attached.
Federal Program Name: Highway Planning and Construction Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Assistance Listing Title and Number: Highway Planning and Construction Program, 20.205 Award Year: 2014, 2015, 2018 Criteria or Specific Requirement: Under Uniform Guidance compliance requirements for Procurement (2 CFR 200.318(i)), contract files must be sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. In cases where competition was limited, such as scenarios where specific qualifications and competence are required, the files should provide evidence that the limitation on competition was justified. Condition: The County entered into various professional services contracts for engineering and consulting services for its highway grant programs but did not maintain appropriate documentation to support its procurement decisions. Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During our testing of procurement requirements, 3 out of 3 projects selected for testing included contracts for engineering/consulting services. For 2 of the 3 contracts, the County selected based on qualifications/competence established by the state Department of Transportation rather than a formal RFP process but did not have appropriate documentation as evidence of their basis for conclusion. The other contract tested was subject to an RFP process but did not have appropriate documentation to support how the chosen firm was selected. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Effect: Contracts were approved without appropriate documentation to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. Cause: Adequate supporting documentation on the procurements was not obtained or maintained within project or vendor files due to oversight in administration of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the County revisit controls over this compliance requirement to ensure that appropriate documentation is gathered and retained within its procurement files to support all Federally funded purchasing decisions. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: See corrective action plan prepared by management attached.
Federal Program Name: Highway Planning and Construction Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Assistance Listing Title and Number: Highway Planning and Construction Program, 20.205 Award Year: 2014, 2015, 2018 Criteria or Specific Requirement: In order to ensure compliance with Equipment and Real Property Management requirements under the Uniform Guidance, management must establish controls so that records properly track federal property and equipment separate from non-federal property and equipment. Condition: The County has various real property (roads and bridges) that were funded by Federal awards. While its asset records are designed to capture and identify Federal participation, that field within its road and bridge asset listing has not been populated. Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During our testing of the three highway grant funded projects for 2021, we attempted to trace the capitalizable portion of Federal expenses back to capital asset records. We noted that for all three projects, the asset listing did not identify the related road/bridge assets as being Federally funded. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Effect: The County asset listing for road and bridge assets is not being maintained in a manner that complies with Federal real property management requirements. Because it has not identified in the asset records which road and bridge assets include Federal participation, the County would need to revisit and update the listing to ensure compliance moving forward. Cause: Sufficient detail in the capital asset listing was not maintained due to an oversight in administration of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the County revisit its road and bridge asset records to ensure that Federally funded real property is identified. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: See corrective action plan prepared by management attached.
Federal Program Name: Highway Planning and Construction Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Assistance Listing Title and Number: Highway Planning and Construction Program, 20.205 Award Year: 2014, 2015, 2018 Criteria or Specific Requirement: Under Uniform Guidance compliance requirements for Procurement (2 CFR 200.318(i)), contract files must be sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. In cases where competition was limited, such as scenarios where specific qualifications and competence are required, the files should provide evidence that the limitation on competition was justified. Condition: The County entered into various professional services contracts for engineering and consulting services for its highway grant programs but did not maintain appropriate documentation to support its procurement decisions. Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During our testing of procurement requirements, 3 out of 3 projects selected for testing included contracts for engineering/consulting services. For 2 of the 3 contracts, the County selected based on qualifications/competence established by the state Department of Transportation rather than a formal RFP process but did not have appropriate documentation as evidence of their basis for conclusion. The other contract tested was subject to an RFP process but did not have appropriate documentation to support how the chosen firm was selected. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Effect: Contracts were approved without appropriate documentation to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. Cause: Adequate supporting documentation on the procurements was not obtained or maintained within project or vendor files due to oversight in administration of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the County revisit controls over this compliance requirement to ensure that appropriate documentation is gathered and retained within its procurement files to support all Federally funded purchasing decisions. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: See corrective action plan prepared by management attached.
Federal Program Name: Highway Planning and Construction Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Assistance Listing Title and Number: Highway Planning and Construction Program, 20.205 Award Year: 2014, 2015, 2018 Criteria or Specific Requirement: In order to ensure compliance with Equipment and Real Property Management requirements under the Uniform Guidance, management must establish controls so that records properly track federal property and equipment separate from non-federal property and equipment. Condition: The County has various real property (roads and bridges) that were funded by Federal awards. While its asset records are designed to capture and identify Federal participation, that field within its road and bridge asset listing has not been populated. Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During our testing of the three highway grant funded projects for 2021, we attempted to trace the capitalizable portion of Federal expenses back to capital asset records. We noted that for all three projects, the asset listing did not identify the related road/bridge assets as being Federally funded. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Effect: The County asset listing for road and bridge assets is not being maintained in a manner that complies with Federal real property management requirements. Because it has not identified in the asset records which road and bridge assets include Federal participation, the County would need to revisit and update the listing to ensure compliance moving forward. Cause: Sufficient detail in the capital asset listing was not maintained due to an oversight in administration of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the County revisit its road and bridge asset records to ensure that Federally funded real property is identified. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: See corrective action plan prepared by management attached.
Federal Program Name: Highway Planning and Construction Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Assistance Listing Title and Number: Highway Planning and Construction Program, 20.205 Award Year: 2014, 2015, 2018 Criteria or Specific Requirement: Under Uniform Guidance compliance requirements for Procurement (2 CFR 200.318(i)), contract files must be sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. In cases where competition was limited, such as scenarios where specific qualifications and competence are required, the files should provide evidence that the limitation on competition was justified. Condition: The County entered into various professional services contracts for engineering and consulting services for its highway grant programs but did not maintain appropriate documentation to support its procurement decisions. Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During our testing of procurement requirements, 3 out of 3 projects selected for testing included contracts for engineering/consulting services. For 2 of the 3 contracts, the County selected based on qualifications/competence established by the state Department of Transportation rather than a formal RFP process but did not have appropriate documentation as evidence of their basis for conclusion. The other contract tested was subject to an RFP process but did not have appropriate documentation to support how the chosen firm was selected. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Effect: Contracts were approved without appropriate documentation to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. Cause: Adequate supporting documentation on the procurements was not obtained or maintained within project or vendor files due to oversight in administration of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the County revisit controls over this compliance requirement to ensure that appropriate documentation is gathered and retained within its procurement files to support all Federally funded purchasing decisions. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: See corrective action plan prepared by management attached.
Federal Program Name: Highway Planning and Construction Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Assistance Listing Title and Number: Highway Planning and Construction Program, 20.205 Award Year: 2014, 2015, 2018 Criteria or Specific Requirement: In order to ensure compliance with Equipment and Real Property Management requirements under the Uniform Guidance, management must establish controls so that records properly track federal property and equipment separate from non-federal property and equipment. Condition: The County has various real property (roads and bridges) that were funded by Federal awards. While its asset records are designed to capture and identify Federal participation, that field within its road and bridge asset listing has not been populated. Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During our testing of the three highway grant funded projects for 2021, we attempted to trace the capitalizable portion of Federal expenses back to capital asset records. We noted that for all three projects, the asset listing did not identify the related road/bridge assets as being Federally funded. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Effect: The County asset listing for road and bridge assets is not being maintained in a manner that complies with Federal real property management requirements. Because it has not identified in the asset records which road and bridge assets include Federal participation, the County would need to revisit and update the listing to ensure compliance moving forward. Cause: Sufficient detail in the capital asset listing was not maintained due to an oversight in administration of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the County revisit its road and bridge asset records to ensure that Federally funded real property is identified. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: See corrective action plan prepared by management attached.
Federal Program Name: Highway Planning and Construction Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Assistance Listing Title and Number: Highway Planning and Construction Program, 20.205 Award Year: 2014, 2015, 2018 Criteria or Specific Requirement: Under Uniform Guidance compliance requirements for Procurement (2 CFR 200.318(i)), contract files must be sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. In cases where competition was limited, such as scenarios where specific qualifications and competence are required, the files should provide evidence that the limitation on competition was justified. Condition: The County entered into various professional services contracts for engineering and consulting services for its highway grant programs but did not maintain appropriate documentation to support its procurement decisions. Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During our testing of procurement requirements, 3 out of 3 projects selected for testing included contracts for engineering/consulting services. For 2 of the 3 contracts, the County selected based on qualifications/competence established by the state Department of Transportation rather than a formal RFP process but did not have appropriate documentation as evidence of their basis for conclusion. The other contract tested was subject to an RFP process but did not have appropriate documentation to support how the chosen firm was selected. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Effect: Contracts were approved without appropriate documentation to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. Cause: Adequate supporting documentation on the procurements was not obtained or maintained within project or vendor files due to oversight in administration of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the County revisit controls over this compliance requirement to ensure that appropriate documentation is gathered and retained within its procurement files to support all Federally funded purchasing decisions. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: See corrective action plan prepared by management attached.
Federal Program Name: Highway Planning and Construction Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through Entity: Indiana Department of Transportation Federal Assistance Listing Title and Number: Highway Planning and Construction Program, 20.205 Award Year: 2014, 2015, 2018 Criteria or Specific Requirement: In order to ensure compliance with Equipment and Real Property Management requirements under the Uniform Guidance, management must establish controls so that records properly track federal property and equipment separate from non-federal property and equipment. Condition: The County has various real property (roads and bridges) that were funded by Federal awards. While its asset records are designed to capture and identify Federal participation, that field within its road and bridge asset listing has not been populated. Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During our testing of the three highway grant funded projects for 2021, we attempted to trace the capitalizable portion of Federal expenses back to capital asset records. We noted that for all three projects, the asset listing did not identify the related road/bridge assets as being Federally funded. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Effect: The County asset listing for road and bridge assets is not being maintained in a manner that complies with Federal real property management requirements. Because it has not identified in the asset records which road and bridge assets include Federal participation, the County would need to revisit and update the listing to ensure compliance moving forward. Cause: Sufficient detail in the capital asset listing was not maintained due to an oversight in administration of the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the County revisit its road and bridge asset records to ensure that Federally funded real property is identified. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: See corrective action plan prepared by management attached.