VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS The PRDE acknowledges the auditor’s finding. Management clarifies that all requested information was available and existed within the PRDE systems; however, it was not provided in a timely manner due to circumstances beyond the Department’s control, including competing...
VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS The PRDE acknowledges the auditor’s finding. Management clarifies that all requested information was available and existed within the PRDE systems; however, it was not provided in a timely manner due to circumstances beyond the Department’s control, including competing deliverables required from the same operational areas. Regarding the disbursement vouchers referenced by the auditors, including the Excel Master and Adjustment Reports, the program area reviewed the documents and confirmed that they reconciled accurately. The timing differences were due to automatic and manual adjustments. All supporting information was available in PRDE’s databases, including SIFDE and MIPE, and has been included as part of this response for further reference. For the student billed for $34,000, all supporting documentation—such as the proposal, approval of payment, and related evidence—was and remains available in MIPE. As part of PRDE’s internal controls, all necessary documentation must be uploaded into the system before any transaction can proceed. It is also important to note that auditors were granted full access to both MIPE and SIFDE at the beginning of their audit procedures. In relation to Findings 4 and 5, documentation was available in MIPE. Management notes that certain contracts and proposals may have amendments, and it appears the auditors may have reviewed an incorrect version of the file. Similarly, for Finding 6, the area revalidated the information during the preparation of this response and confirmed that the documentation cited as missing was, in fact, available in the MIPE portal. Additionally, management evaluated the matter related to expense recognition. In accordance with federal regulations and to ensure compliance with IDEA requirements, PRDE is authorized to cover certain expenses of the Preschool Grant (84.173) using IDEA Part B (84.027) funds. As detailed in the prior Single Audit report: “IDEA Part B, Section 611 funds can be used for students ages 3 to 21. According to the description provided by OSEP, the Grants to States program assists states in meeting the excess costs of providing special education and related services to children with disabilities. States must serve all children with disabilities between the ages of 3 through 21, unless inconsistent with State law or court orders. Under 34 CFR § 300.202(a), the LEA must use IDEA Part B funds to pay the excess costs of providing special education and related services to children with disabilities.” Regarding the vouchers related to training services, PRDE does not concur with that portion of the finding, as the contract does not stipulate that the teachers must be an IDEA employee. This contract was previously evaluated as part of the auditors’ procedures. The PRDE accepts the auditors’ recommendations and will implement corrective actions to improve the timely submission of documentation and strengthen internal coordination among areas involved in responding to audit requests Auditor Comment on Management Response for Finding No. 2024-002 In response of the second paragraph, our Auditors held three (3) meetings with PRDE’s personnel and the amounts were not reconciled. For the third response, no justification exists in MIPE or SIFDE that the amount paid is reasonable and in accordance with the contract. In fact, if all costs disclosed in the contract were applied to that student, the amount is less than the $34,000 paid monthly. For the fourth response related to Conditions 4 and 5, our Auditors requested all information to be available. We held three (3) meetings, and the information did not reconcile and was not available for our evaluation. In addition, we understand and acknowledge that contracts have amendments; however, these amendments relate to increases in the total amount because an original contract is based on a certain quantity, and amendments are made as funds are received. The cost per student established in the contract or proposals remained unchanged in these amendments. The lack of verification between the supplier's cost as stated in the contract and the cost invoiced by the supplier is a significant problem because the supplier is billing for a cost that was not part of the original agreement or proposal. For the fifth through seven responses, the Uniform Guidance requires that financial management system record the expenditures in the program that benefited from the services; no in the program with more budget.. IMPLEMENTATION DATE None RESPONSIBLE PERSON Enid Díaz Executive Director Alayra Figueroa Associate Secretary of Special Education