FINDING 2023-004 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 2022, FY 2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. During fiscal year 2021-2022, the School Corporation had 119 disbursements to 5 vendors, totaling $95,842, that were considered small purchases. There were12 transactions from 5 vendors that were selected for testing. For 3 transactions, from 1 vendor, the School Corporation could not provide the procurement history or the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of vendor, and basis for price. The total dollar amount spent with the vendor was $20,777. During fiscal year 2022-2023, the School Corporation elected to increase its micro-purchase threshold from $10,000 to $50,000. As such micro-purchases were those goods or services purchased that were $50,000 or under. The School Corporation had 193 disbursements to 23 vendors, totaling $115,779, that were considered micro-purchases. A total of 20 transactions from 14 vendors were selected for testing. For 2 transactions, from 1 vendor, the School Corporation did not have adequate documentation, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of vendor, and basis of price. The total dollar amount spent with the vendor was $43,928. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Upon inquiry of the School Corporation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the School Corporation disclosed that the Treasurer or Food Service Director verified vendors were not suspended or debarred by either printing a verification from SAM.gov or, if applicable, including a clause in the vendor contract. Three covered transactions that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were identified. All three transactions, totaling $389,898, were selected for testing. Two of the three transactions, totaling $72,883, did not have documentation to show that the School Corporation verified the vendor's suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was systemic throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . ." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (1) Micro-purchases – (ii) Micro-purchase awards. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price or rate quotation if the non-Federal entity considers the price to be reasonable based on research, experience, purchase history or other information and documents it files accordingly. . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to, and vendors to whom payments are equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 25 GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-004 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 2022, FY 2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. During fiscal year 2021-2022, the School Corporation had 119 disbursements to 5 vendors, totaling $95,842, that were considered small purchases. There were12 transactions from 5 vendors that were selected for testing. For 3 transactions, from 1 vendor, the School Corporation could not provide the procurement history or the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of vendor, and basis for price. The total dollar amount spent with the vendor was $20,777. During fiscal year 2022-2023, the School Corporation elected to increase its micro-purchase threshold from $10,000 to $50,000. As such micro-purchases were those goods or services purchased that were $50,000 or under. The School Corporation had 193 disbursements to 23 vendors, totaling $115,779, that were considered micro-purchases. A total of 20 transactions from 14 vendors were selected for testing. For 2 transactions, from 1 vendor, the School Corporation did not have adequate documentation, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of vendor, and basis of price. The total dollar amount spent with the vendor was $43,928. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Upon inquiry of the School Corporation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the School Corporation disclosed that the Treasurer or Food Service Director verified vendors were not suspended or debarred by either printing a verification from SAM.gov or, if applicable, including a clause in the vendor contract. Three covered transactions that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were identified. All three transactions, totaling $389,898, were selected for testing. Two of the three transactions, totaling $72,883, did not have documentation to show that the School Corporation verified the vendor's suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was systemic throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . ." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (1) Micro-purchases – (ii) Micro-purchase awards. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price or rate quotation if the non-Federal entity considers the price to be reasonable based on research, experience, purchase history or other information and documents it files accordingly. . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to, and vendors to whom payments are equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 25 GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-004 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 2022, FY 2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. During fiscal year 2021-2022, the School Corporation had 119 disbursements to 5 vendors, totaling $95,842, that were considered small purchases. There were12 transactions from 5 vendors that were selected for testing. For 3 transactions, from 1 vendor, the School Corporation could not provide the procurement history or the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of vendor, and basis for price. The total dollar amount spent with the vendor was $20,777. During fiscal year 2022-2023, the School Corporation elected to increase its micro-purchase threshold from $10,000 to $50,000. As such micro-purchases were those goods or services purchased that were $50,000 or under. The School Corporation had 193 disbursements to 23 vendors, totaling $115,779, that were considered micro-purchases. A total of 20 transactions from 14 vendors were selected for testing. For 2 transactions, from 1 vendor, the School Corporation did not have adequate documentation, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of vendor, and basis of price. The total dollar amount spent with the vendor was $43,928. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Upon inquiry of the School Corporation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the School Corporation disclosed that the Treasurer or Food Service Director verified vendors were not suspended or debarred by either printing a verification from SAM.gov or, if applicable, including a clause in the vendor contract. Three covered transactions that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were identified. All three transactions, totaling $389,898, were selected for testing. Two of the three transactions, totaling $72,883, did not have documentation to show that the School Corporation verified the vendor's suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was systemic throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . ." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (1) Micro-purchases – (ii) Micro-purchase awards. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price or rate quotation if the non-Federal entity considers the price to be reasonable based on research, experience, purchase history or other information and documents it files accordingly. . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to, and vendors to whom payments are equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 25 GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-004 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 2022, FY 2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. During fiscal year 2021-2022, the School Corporation had 119 disbursements to 5 vendors, totaling $95,842, that were considered small purchases. There were12 transactions from 5 vendors that were selected for testing. For 3 transactions, from 1 vendor, the School Corporation could not provide the procurement history or the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of vendor, and basis for price. The total dollar amount spent with the vendor was $20,777. During fiscal year 2022-2023, the School Corporation elected to increase its micro-purchase threshold from $10,000 to $50,000. As such micro-purchases were those goods or services purchased that were $50,000 or under. The School Corporation had 193 disbursements to 23 vendors, totaling $115,779, that were considered micro-purchases. A total of 20 transactions from 14 vendors were selected for testing. For 2 transactions, from 1 vendor, the School Corporation did not have adequate documentation, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of vendor, and basis of price. The total dollar amount spent with the vendor was $43,928. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Upon inquiry of the School Corporation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the School Corporation disclosed that the Treasurer or Food Service Director verified vendors were not suspended or debarred by either printing a verification from SAM.gov or, if applicable, including a clause in the vendor contract. Three covered transactions that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were identified. All three transactions, totaling $389,898, were selected for testing. Two of the three transactions, totaling $72,883, did not have documentation to show that the School Corporation verified the vendor's suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was systemic throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . ." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (1) Micro-purchases – (ii) Micro-purchase awards. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price or rate quotation if the non-Federal entity considers the price to be reasonable based on research, experience, purchase history or other information and documents it files accordingly. . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to, and vendors to whom payments are equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 25 GREATER JASPER CONSOLIDATED SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
HEERF INSTITUTIONAL AID SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (CONTINUE) YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2023 PROCUREMENT SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT FINDING NO. 2023-003 – PROCUREMENT SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT CRITERIA Suspension and Debarment Schools are prohibited from contracting with or making subawards under covered transactions to parties that are suspended or debarred. “Covered transactions” include contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (e.g., grant or cooperative agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000 or meet certain other criteria as specified in 2 C.F.R.§ 180.220. All non-procurement transactions entered by a passthrough entity (i.e., subawards to subrecipients), irrespective of award amount, are considered covered transactions, unless they are exempt as provided in 2 C.F.R. § 180.215. When a school enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the school must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 C.F.R. § 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. This verification may be accomplished by (1) checking the System for Award Management Exclusions maintained by the General Services Administration and available at https://www.sam.gov/SAM/ (click on Search Record, then click on Advanced Search- Exclusions) (Note: The OMB guidance at 2 C.F.R. part 180 and agency implementing regulations still refer to the System for Award Management Exclusions as the Excluded Parties List System), (2) collecting a certification from the entity, or (3) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that entity (2 C.F.R. § 180.300). Schools receiving contracts from the federal government are required to comply with the contract clause at FAR 52.209-6 before entering into a subcontract that will exceed $30,000, other than a subcontract for a commercially available off-the-shelf item. Criteria: 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.318 through 200.326 2 C.F.R. Part 180 48 C.F.R. Subpart 2.1 48 C.F.R. § 9.405-2(b) 48 C.F.R. § 52.209-6 HEERF INSTITUTIONAL AID SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (CONTINUE) YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2023 PROCUREMENT SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT FINDING NO. 2023-003 – PROCUREMENT SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT (CONTINUE) CRITERIA (CONTINUE) Improper payment means: (1) Any payment that should not have been made or that was made in an incorrect amount under statutory, contractual, administrative, or other legally applicable requirements. (i) Incorrect amounts are overpayments or underpayments that are made to eligible recipients (including inappropriate denials of payment or service, any payment that does not account for credit for applicable discounts, payments that are for an incorrect amount, and duplicate payments). An improper payment also includes any payment that was made to an ineligible recipient or for an ineligible good or service, or payments for goods or services not received. Note 1 to paragraph (1)(i) of this definition. Applicable discounts are only those discounts where it is both advantageous and within the agency's control to claim them. (ii) When an agency's review is unable to discern whether a payment was proper as a result of insufficient or lack of documentation, this payment should also be considered an improper payment. When establishing documentation requirements for payments, agencies should ensure that all documentation requirements are necessary and should refrain from imposing additional burdensome documentation requirements. Code of Federal regulations Title II Subtitle A Chapter II Part 200 Subpart A-Acronyms Section 200.1 HEERF INSTITUTIONAL AID SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (CONTINUE) YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2023 PROCUREMENT SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT FINDING NO. 2023-003 – PROCUREMENT SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT (CONTINUE) CONDITION We examined one hundred percent (100%) of the disbursed made and charged to HEERF Instutional Aid for the fiscal year 2022-2023 and noted the following: 1) UPM did not have documentation related Schools are prohibited from contracting with or making subawards under covered transactions to parties that are suspended or debarred. 2) UPM made five (5) payments for $100,406.71 in advance for goods or services not received at the disbursement date. EFFECT UPM did not comply with the regulations and internal controls procedures to made disbursements before received goods or services. QUESTIONED COSTS $100,406.71 CAUSE The institution did not follow the institutional procedures to make disbursements before received goods or services according to regulations and institution procedures. RECOMMENDATION The Institution should reinforce the established procedures and adhere to them before any payment is made for goods or services. The amount of $100,406.71 should be reimbursed to the U.S. Department of Education. In addition, UPM should be included in its procedures steps to adopting regulations, to verify that the vendor entity is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS See the Corrective Action Plan for details of action required.
Finding Reference 2023-002 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Program: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (ALN 21.027) Compliance Requirement: Reporting (L) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls (SD), Instance of Noncompliance (NC) Statement of Condition In our Reporting Test, we evaluated two (2) Project and Expenditure Reports submitted to the U.S. Department of Treasury during fiscal year 2022-2023. The first one corresponded to the quarter from January to March 2023, identified as Q1 2023. The second one corresponded to the quarter from April to June 2023, identified as Q2 2023. The report Q1 2023 discloses the cumulative information of thirteen (13) projects. Of the total of thirteen (13) projects, four (4) have expenditures reported as incurred between January through March 2023. During our audit procedures, we identified differences between the amounts reported as current period expenditures, and the amounts recognized in the accounting system for one (1) of the four (4) projects. The report Q2 2023 discloses the cumulative information of eighteen (18) projects of which seven (7) have expenditures reported as incurred between April through June 2023. During our audit procedures, we identified differences between the amounts reported as current period expenditures, and the amounts recognized in the accounting system for one (3) of the seven (7) projects. Criteria The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Compliance and Reporting Guidance, Part I, Section 10 (d), states that all recipients of federal funds must complete financial, performance, and compliance reporting as required and outlined in Part 2 of this guidance. Expenditures may be reported on a cash or accrual basis, as long as the methodology is disclosed and consistently applied. Reporting must be consistent with the definition of expenditures pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1. Appropriate accounting records must be maintained for compiling and reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. In addition, where appropriate, controls need to be established to ensure the completion and timely submission of all mandatory performance and/or compliance reporting. Cause of Condition The working papers used as source document to prepare the quarterly reports had mathematical errors. The program administrators identified the situation and made improvements to the working papers to have more control in the accuracy and completeness of the information. Also, they have been correcting the errors in the subsequent reports to properly present the actual funds spent. Effect of Condition The expenses reported in the Project and Expenditure Reports do not agree with the accounting records. Recommendation We recommend the Program to establish monitoring procedures to ensure the accuracy of accounting records and the correct completion of the Project and Expenditure Reports. The Program fiscal area ensures that accounting records are updated at the end of each month in order to prepare accurate reports for the federal agency. Questioned Cost None Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action We concur with the finding. During the quarters from January to March and April to June 2023, there were differences between the reports submitted to the Treasury Department and the accounting reports of the SIMA system. This happened because obligations that were cancelled were included in the submitted reports and not corrected within the corresponding quarter. The personnel assigned to work on the quarterly reports became aware of these situations after the submission of the reports. As a corrective measure, an internal work sheet was created where monthly cancellations and adjustments are verified. In this way, the quarterly report submitted to the Treasury Department will agree with the accounting system. Before submitting the reports, a meeting is held to validate that the worksheet is in accordance with the accounting system. After validating the accuracy of the worksheet, the report is submitted to the Treasury Department with information consistent with the accounting system. As of today, the differences identified have been corrected in subsequent quarters. Implementation Date: Fiscal Year 2023-2024. Responsible Person: Bárbara Castro Viruet, Accountant
Program: AL 17.225 – Unemployment Insurance – State – Allowability & Eligibility Grant Number & Year: N/A Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Repeat Finding: 2022-046 Questioned Costs: $36,869 Statistical Sample: No Summary: Audit Finding 2023-014, included in Part II of this report, relates to both the financial statements and Federal awards. The APA performed a random sample of benefit payments and tested payments to State employees, individuals with high wages, and other payments. Our procedures revealed adjudication issues, improper payments to claimants, and other issues. The APA randomly selected 40 claimant benefit payments. The total sample tested was $22,178, and questioned costs for payments tested were $4,493. Total benefit payments for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, were $62,550,014. Based on the sample tested, the dollar error rate for the sample was 20.26% ($4,493/$22,178), which estimates the potential dollars at risk for fiscal year 2023 to be $12,672,633 (dollar error rate multiplied by population). We noted additional questioned costs during testing, totaling $32,376. A similar finding was noted in the prior audit. The Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings lists the status as completed. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency implement procedures to prevent the payment of improper Unemployment Insurance (UI) benefits by ensuring compliance with applicable State and Federal requirements. At a minimum, those procedures should ensure the following: 1) proper adjudication actions – including wage crossmatches, investigations into suspect separation from employment information, and separation information requests being sent to employers – are undertaken; and 2) neither ineligible State employees nor other ineligible claimants receive benefit payments. Management Response: The Department acknowledges the finding but notes that the funds at issue are comprised entirely of unemployment benefit overpayments. The Department questions the categorization of benefit overpayments as Questioned or Disallowed Costs. Regular state unemployment benefit payments are made from Nebraska taxes collected by the Department as part of the unemployment program and deposited to the federal Unemployment Trust Fund (UTF) for the payment of state unemployment benefits. Those UTF monies are never intermingled with administrative grant funds awarded to the Department for the administration of the Nebraska unemployment program. Previous final determinations of the United States Department of Labor have found the errant payment of benefits to be disallowed but not subject to Federal debt collection. The Department understands the importance of quality unemployment insurance adjudication and is taking to steps to correct the findings noted above. APA Response: State unemployment tax revenues must be deposited to the Unemployment Trust Fund in the U.S. Treasury. Therefore, as noted in the OMB Compliance Supplement, expenditures from State UI funds must be included with Federal funds on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA). Costs included on the SEFA that are not supported at the time of the audit or are a result of a violation or possible violation of a statute are considered questioned costs, as defined by the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR § 200.1.
Program: AL 20.509 – Formula Grants for Rural Areas – Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: NE-2021-011-00, Performance End FFY 2024; NE-2022-019-00, Performance End FFY 2024 Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 1201.1 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of Transportation adopted the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements set forth at Title 2 CFR part 200. 2 CFR § 200.332 (January 1, 2023) requires all pass-through entities to do the following: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. . . . Required information includes: (1) Federal award identification. * * * * (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal award date in § 200.1 of this part) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date[.] Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that subrecipients are informed of all required information. Condition: The Agency did not communicate all required information to subrecipients. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: None Statistical Sample: No Context: During the fiscal year, 58 subrecipients received Federal funding. We tested six subrecipients and noted that the Agency did not properly communicate to them the FAIN, the Federal award date, or the subaward period of performance start and end dates. For the six subrecipients tested, the Agency provided a supplemental agreement that identified the availability of new Federal funding; however, the supplemental agreement did not communicate all necessary Federal award information. Subrecipient expenditures totaled $10,974,293 during the fiscal year. Cause: The supplemental agreement sent to all subrecipients did not include the FAIN, the Federal award date, or the subaward period of performance start and end dates. Effect: When subrecipients are not informed of all required information, there is an increased risk for subrecipient noncompliance, including with audit requirements. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency strengthen subrecipient agreements to ensure that subrecipient program agreements include all information required to be communicated. Management Response: NDOT acknowledges all findings and has incorporated Federal Identification details into the updated supplemental agreement template, intending to include all FAIN information in future supplemental agreements.
Program: AL 21.026 – COVID-19 Homeowner Assistance Fund – Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: N/A Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 1000.10 (January 1, 2023) the U.S. Department of the Treasury adopted the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements set forth at 2 CFR part 200. 2 CFR § 200.331 (January 1, 2023) states the following, in relevant part: The non-Federal entity may concurrently receive Federal awards as a recipient, a subrecipient, and a contractor, depending on the substance of its agreements with Federal awarding agencies and pass-through entities. Therefore, a pass-through entity must make case-by-case determinations whether each agreement it makes for the disbursement of Federal program funds casts the party receiving the funds in the role of a subrecipient or a contractor. The Federal awarding agency may supply and require recipients to comply with additional guidance to support these determinations provided such guidance does not conflict with this section. (a) Subrecipients. A subaward is for the purpose of carrying out a portion of a Federal award and creates a Federal assistance relationship with the subrecipient. See definition of Subaward in § 200.1 of this part. Characteristics which support the classification of the non-Federal entity as a subrecipient include when the non-Federal entity: (1) Determines who is eligible to receive what Federal assistance; (2) Has its performance measured in relation to whether objectives of a Federal program were met; (3) Has responsibility for programmatic decision-making; (4) Is responsible for adherence to applicable Federal program requirements specified in the Federal award; and (5) In accordance with its agreement, uses the Federal funds to carry out a program for a public purpose specified in authorizing statute, as opposed to providing goods or services for the benefit of the pass-through entity. (b) Contractors. A contract is for the purpose of obtaining goods and services for the non-Federal entity’s own use and creates a procurement relationship with the contractor. See the definition of contract in § 200.1 of this part. Characteristics indicative of a procurement relationship between the non-Federal entity and a contractor are when the contractor: (1) Provides the goods and services within normal business operations; (2) Provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers; (3) Normally operates in a competitive environment; (4) Provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of the Federal program; and (5) Is not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program as a result of the agreement, though similar requirements may apply for other reasons. (c) Use of judgment in making determination. In determining whether an agreement between a pass-through entity and another non-Federal entity casts the latter as a subrecipient or a contractor, the substance of the relationship is more important than the form of the agreement. All of the characteristics listed above may not be present in all cases, and the pass-through entity must use judgment in classifying each agreement as a subaward or a procurement contract. 2 CFR § 200.511(b) (January 1, 2023) states, as is relevant, the following: The summary schedule of prior audit findings must report the status of all audit findings included in the prior audit's schedule of findings and questioned costs. . . . (2) When audit findings were not corrected or were only partially corrected, the summary schedule must describe the reasons for the finding's recurrence and planned corrective action, and any partial corrective action taken. When corrective action taken is significantly different from corrective action previously reported in a corrective action plan or in the Federal agency's or pass-through entity's management decision, the summary schedule must provide an explanation. (3) When the auditee believes the audit findings are no longer valid or do not warrant further action, the reasons for this position must be described in the summary schedule. Condition: The Agency did not properly consider the Nebraska Investment Finance Authority (NIFA) to be a subrecipient. Additionally, the Agency did not properly complete the Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings. Repeat Finding: 2022-055 Questioned Costs: None Statistical Sample: No Context: In the previous fiscal year, the Agency considered NIFA to be a subrecipient and reported $451,581 in subrecipient expenditures on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA). During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, the Agency paid NIFA $92,255 for ongoing Homeowner Assistance Fund (HAF) program administration. These payments were not reported as subrecipient expenditures because the Agency changed its determination and now considers NIFA to be a contractor rather than a subrecipient of the program. The APA disagrees with the Agency’s position that NIFA should be considered a contractor, as NIFA determines, to a substantial degree, the eligibility of applicants and, through that determination, informs State Accounting of which assistance payments are to be made and to whom. Additionally, NIFA is required to adhere to applicable Federal program requirements in the Federal award, and NIFA is administering the HAF program for a public purpose, not for the benefit of the Agency. Further, the position that NIFA is a contractor, rather than a subrecipient, of the HAF program does not reflect the Agency’s position in the Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings. The Schedule notes the following partial action taken: The Military Department will use subrecipient policies and procedures it has in place to continue to monitor the performance of NIFA and ensure that Federal guidelines are followed, and requirements are met. The Schedule also noted the following corrective action planned: The Military Department will modify the memorandum of Understanding between the parties to identify NIFA as a subrecipient and advise them of any additional requirements. The Agency’s position that NIFA is not a subrecipient of the HAF program was not properly communicated in the Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings as required by 2 CFR § 200.511(b)(2). Cause: Agency oversight. Effect: Noncompliance with Federal guidelines. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency implement procedures to review Federal guidelines to ensure subrecipients are properly identified, and that the Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings is completed properly. Management Response: Due to the Agency’s turnover recently, the response to this audit finding was in error. We agree with the finding and consider NIFA to be a Sub-Recipient.
Various Agencies Finding 2023 –¬ 023: ALN 10.565, 10.568, and 10.569 – Food Distribution Cluster ALN 93.044, 93.045, and 93.053 – Aging Cluster (including COVID-19) ALN 93.323 – Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (including COVID-19) ALN 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (including COVID-19) ALN 93.658 – Foster Care – Title IV-E (including COVID-19) ALN 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant State Agencies Did Not Identify the Federal Award Information and Applicable Requirements at the Time of the Subaward and Did Not Evaluate Each Subrecipient’s Risk of Noncompliance as Required by the Uniform Grant Guidance (A Similar Condition Was Noted in Prior Year Finding 2022-013) Federal Grant Number(s) and Year(s): 221PA825Y8005 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 221PA825Y8105 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 231PA825Y8005 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023) 231PA825Y8105 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2101PACMC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAHDC5 (12/27/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAHDC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAOACM (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOAHD (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOANS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOASS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAPHC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PASSC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAVAC5 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOACM (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOAHD (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOANS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOASS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASTPH (1/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOACM (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOAHD (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOANS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOASS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), NU50CK000527 (8/01/2019 – 7/31/2024), 2301PATANF (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PATANF (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2201PAFOST (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2301PAFOST (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASOSR (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2301PASOSR (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 applies to the major programs listed above for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Our testing disclosed that the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) did not identify the federal award information and applicable requirements in subrecipient award documents. Additionally, DHS, PDA, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH), and the Pennsylvania Department of Aging (PDOA) did not adequately evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for the purpose of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. This represents an internal control weakness which could cause subrecipients to be improperly informed of federal award information and may result in inadequate monitoring by the state agencies. Also, it could cause the omission or improper identification of program expenditures on subrecipients’ Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFAs). The following chart shows which federal award information required by 2 CFR Section 200 was omitted (as indicated by “No”) from the subrecipient award documents at the time of the subaward and which major programs did not have a state agency evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance. Finding 2023 –¬ 023: (continued) SEE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR CHART/TABLE Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.332, Requirements for pass-through entities, states in part: All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: Finding 2023 – 023: (continued) (1) Federal Award Identification. (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal Award date in section 200.1) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings Number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. (b) Evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F [Audit Requirements] of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency) Management Directive 325.12, Amended – Standards for Enterprise Risk Management in Commonwealth Agencies, adopted the internal control framework outlined in the United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book). The Green Book states in part: Management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives. Management should identify, analyze, and respond to significant changes that could impact the internal control system. Cause: In general, DHS’s and PDA’s processes for subrecipient award monitoring did not identify the omission of required elements from the grant awards. In addition, the risk assessments performed by DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH were not properly documented or not performed. Effect: Excluding the federal grant award information at the time of the subaward may cause subrecipients and their auditors to be uninformed about specific program and other regulations that apply to the funds they receive. There is also the potential for subrecipients to have incomplete SEFAs in their Single Audit reports submitted to the Commonwealth, and federal funds may not be properly audited at the subrecipient level in accordance with the Single Audit Act and Uniform Guidance. Not evaluating each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward may result in subrecipients using the subaward for unauthorized purposes or in violation of the terms and conditions of the subaward, and state agency monitoring would not detect this noncompliance and ensure it is corrected in a timely manner. Finding 2023 ¬– 023: (continued) Recommendation: DHS and PDA should develop policies and reporting mechanisms to ensure all required federal award information is disseminated to all subrecipients at the time of the subaward to ensure subrecipient compliance with the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 and other applicable federal regulations. In addition, DHS and PDA should correspond with applicable subrecipients to ensure they are aware of the correct federal award information and review applicable subaward documents prior to issuance to ensure federal information is complete and accurate. DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH should implement procedures to adequately document their evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance as cited in 2 CFR Section 200.332 for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. DHS Response: DHS agrees with the finding. DOH Response: DOH agrees with the finding. PDA Response: PDA agrees with the finding. PDOA Response: PDOA agrees with the finding. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs cannot be determined.
Various Agencies Finding 2023 –¬ 023: ALN 10.565, 10.568, and 10.569 – Food Distribution Cluster ALN 93.044, 93.045, and 93.053 – Aging Cluster (including COVID-19) ALN 93.323 – Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (including COVID-19) ALN 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (including COVID-19) ALN 93.658 – Foster Care – Title IV-E (including COVID-19) ALN 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant State Agencies Did Not Identify the Federal Award Information and Applicable Requirements at the Time of the Subaward and Did Not Evaluate Each Subrecipient’s Risk of Noncompliance as Required by the Uniform Grant Guidance (A Similar Condition Was Noted in Prior Year Finding 2022-013) Federal Grant Number(s) and Year(s): 221PA825Y8005 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 221PA825Y8105 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 231PA825Y8005 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023) 231PA825Y8105 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2101PACMC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAHDC5 (12/27/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAHDC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAOACM (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOAHD (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOANS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOASS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAPHC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PASSC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAVAC5 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOACM (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOAHD (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOANS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOASS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASTPH (1/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOACM (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOAHD (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOANS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOASS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), NU50CK000527 (8/01/2019 – 7/31/2024), 2301PATANF (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PATANF (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2201PAFOST (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2301PAFOST (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASOSR (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2301PASOSR (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 applies to the major programs listed above for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Our testing disclosed that the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) did not identify the federal award information and applicable requirements in subrecipient award documents. Additionally, DHS, PDA, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH), and the Pennsylvania Department of Aging (PDOA) did not adequately evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for the purpose of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. This represents an internal control weakness which could cause subrecipients to be improperly informed of federal award information and may result in inadequate monitoring by the state agencies. Also, it could cause the omission or improper identification of program expenditures on subrecipients’ Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFAs). The following chart shows which federal award information required by 2 CFR Section 200 was omitted (as indicated by “No”) from the subrecipient award documents at the time of the subaward and which major programs did not have a state agency evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance. Finding 2023 –¬ 023: (continued) SEE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR CHART/TABLE Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.332, Requirements for pass-through entities, states in part: All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: Finding 2023 – 023: (continued) (1) Federal Award Identification. (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal Award date in section 200.1) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings Number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. (b) Evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F [Audit Requirements] of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency) Management Directive 325.12, Amended – Standards for Enterprise Risk Management in Commonwealth Agencies, adopted the internal control framework outlined in the United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book). The Green Book states in part: Management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives. Management should identify, analyze, and respond to significant changes that could impact the internal control system. Cause: In general, DHS’s and PDA’s processes for subrecipient award monitoring did not identify the omission of required elements from the grant awards. In addition, the risk assessments performed by DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH were not properly documented or not performed. Effect: Excluding the federal grant award information at the time of the subaward may cause subrecipients and their auditors to be uninformed about specific program and other regulations that apply to the funds they receive. There is also the potential for subrecipients to have incomplete SEFAs in their Single Audit reports submitted to the Commonwealth, and federal funds may not be properly audited at the subrecipient level in accordance with the Single Audit Act and Uniform Guidance. Not evaluating each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward may result in subrecipients using the subaward for unauthorized purposes or in violation of the terms and conditions of the subaward, and state agency monitoring would not detect this noncompliance and ensure it is corrected in a timely manner. Finding 2023 ¬– 023: (continued) Recommendation: DHS and PDA should develop policies and reporting mechanisms to ensure all required federal award information is disseminated to all subrecipients at the time of the subaward to ensure subrecipient compliance with the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 and other applicable federal regulations. In addition, DHS and PDA should correspond with applicable subrecipients to ensure they are aware of the correct federal award information and review applicable subaward documents prior to issuance to ensure federal information is complete and accurate. DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH should implement procedures to adequately document their evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance as cited in 2 CFR Section 200.332 for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. DHS Response: DHS agrees with the finding. DOH Response: DOH agrees with the finding. PDA Response: PDA agrees with the finding. PDOA Response: PDOA agrees with the finding. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs cannot be determined.
Various Agencies Finding 2023 –¬ 023: ALN 10.565, 10.568, and 10.569 – Food Distribution Cluster ALN 93.044, 93.045, and 93.053 – Aging Cluster (including COVID-19) ALN 93.323 – Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (including COVID-19) ALN 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (including COVID-19) ALN 93.658 – Foster Care – Title IV-E (including COVID-19) ALN 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant State Agencies Did Not Identify the Federal Award Information and Applicable Requirements at the Time of the Subaward and Did Not Evaluate Each Subrecipient’s Risk of Noncompliance as Required by the Uniform Grant Guidance (A Similar Condition Was Noted in Prior Year Finding 2022-013) Federal Grant Number(s) and Year(s): 221PA825Y8005 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 221PA825Y8105 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 231PA825Y8005 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023) 231PA825Y8105 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2101PACMC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAHDC5 (12/27/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAHDC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAOACM (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOAHD (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOANS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOASS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAPHC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PASSC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAVAC5 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOACM (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOAHD (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOANS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOASS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASTPH (1/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOACM (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOAHD (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOANS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOASS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), NU50CK000527 (8/01/2019 – 7/31/2024), 2301PATANF (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PATANF (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2201PAFOST (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2301PAFOST (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASOSR (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2301PASOSR (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 applies to the major programs listed above for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Our testing disclosed that the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) did not identify the federal award information and applicable requirements in subrecipient award documents. Additionally, DHS, PDA, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH), and the Pennsylvania Department of Aging (PDOA) did not adequately evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for the purpose of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. This represents an internal control weakness which could cause subrecipients to be improperly informed of federal award information and may result in inadequate monitoring by the state agencies. Also, it could cause the omission or improper identification of program expenditures on subrecipients’ Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFAs). The following chart shows which federal award information required by 2 CFR Section 200 was omitted (as indicated by “No”) from the subrecipient award documents at the time of the subaward and which major programs did not have a state agency evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance. Finding 2023 –¬ 023: (continued) SEE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR CHART/TABLE Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.332, Requirements for pass-through entities, states in part: All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: Finding 2023 – 023: (continued) (1) Federal Award Identification. (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal Award date in section 200.1) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings Number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. (b) Evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F [Audit Requirements] of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency) Management Directive 325.12, Amended – Standards for Enterprise Risk Management in Commonwealth Agencies, adopted the internal control framework outlined in the United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book). The Green Book states in part: Management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives. Management should identify, analyze, and respond to significant changes that could impact the internal control system. Cause: In general, DHS’s and PDA’s processes for subrecipient award monitoring did not identify the omission of required elements from the grant awards. In addition, the risk assessments performed by DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH were not properly documented or not performed. Effect: Excluding the federal grant award information at the time of the subaward may cause subrecipients and their auditors to be uninformed about specific program and other regulations that apply to the funds they receive. There is also the potential for subrecipients to have incomplete SEFAs in their Single Audit reports submitted to the Commonwealth, and federal funds may not be properly audited at the subrecipient level in accordance with the Single Audit Act and Uniform Guidance. Not evaluating each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward may result in subrecipients using the subaward for unauthorized purposes or in violation of the terms and conditions of the subaward, and state agency monitoring would not detect this noncompliance and ensure it is corrected in a timely manner. Finding 2023 ¬– 023: (continued) Recommendation: DHS and PDA should develop policies and reporting mechanisms to ensure all required federal award information is disseminated to all subrecipients at the time of the subaward to ensure subrecipient compliance with the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 and other applicable federal regulations. In addition, DHS and PDA should correspond with applicable subrecipients to ensure they are aware of the correct federal award information and review applicable subaward documents prior to issuance to ensure federal information is complete and accurate. DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH should implement procedures to adequately document their evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance as cited in 2 CFR Section 200.332 for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. DHS Response: DHS agrees with the finding. DOH Response: DOH agrees with the finding. PDA Response: PDA agrees with the finding. PDOA Response: PDOA agrees with the finding. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs cannot be determined.
Various Agencies Finding 2023 –¬ 023: ALN 10.565, 10.568, and 10.569 – Food Distribution Cluster ALN 93.044, 93.045, and 93.053 – Aging Cluster (including COVID-19) ALN 93.323 – Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (including COVID-19) ALN 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (including COVID-19) ALN 93.658 – Foster Care – Title IV-E (including COVID-19) ALN 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant State Agencies Did Not Identify the Federal Award Information and Applicable Requirements at the Time of the Subaward and Did Not Evaluate Each Subrecipient’s Risk of Noncompliance as Required by the Uniform Grant Guidance (A Similar Condition Was Noted in Prior Year Finding 2022-013) Federal Grant Number(s) and Year(s): 221PA825Y8005 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 221PA825Y8105 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 231PA825Y8005 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023) 231PA825Y8105 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2101PACMC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAHDC5 (12/27/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAHDC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAOACM (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOAHD (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOANS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOASS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAPHC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PASSC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAVAC5 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOACM (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOAHD (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOANS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOASS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASTPH (1/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOACM (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOAHD (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOANS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOASS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), NU50CK000527 (8/01/2019 – 7/31/2024), 2301PATANF (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PATANF (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2201PAFOST (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2301PAFOST (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASOSR (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2301PASOSR (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 applies to the major programs listed above for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Our testing disclosed that the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) did not identify the federal award information and applicable requirements in subrecipient award documents. Additionally, DHS, PDA, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH), and the Pennsylvania Department of Aging (PDOA) did not adequately evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for the purpose of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. This represents an internal control weakness which could cause subrecipients to be improperly informed of federal award information and may result in inadequate monitoring by the state agencies. Also, it could cause the omission or improper identification of program expenditures on subrecipients’ Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFAs). The following chart shows which federal award information required by 2 CFR Section 200 was omitted (as indicated by “No”) from the subrecipient award documents at the time of the subaward and which major programs did not have a state agency evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance. Finding 2023 –¬ 023: (continued) SEE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR CHART/TABLE Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.332, Requirements for pass-through entities, states in part: All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: Finding 2023 – 023: (continued) (1) Federal Award Identification. (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal Award date in section 200.1) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings Number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. (b) Evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F [Audit Requirements] of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency) Management Directive 325.12, Amended – Standards for Enterprise Risk Management in Commonwealth Agencies, adopted the internal control framework outlined in the United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book). The Green Book states in part: Management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives. Management should identify, analyze, and respond to significant changes that could impact the internal control system. Cause: In general, DHS’s and PDA’s processes for subrecipient award monitoring did not identify the omission of required elements from the grant awards. In addition, the risk assessments performed by DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH were not properly documented or not performed. Effect: Excluding the federal grant award information at the time of the subaward may cause subrecipients and their auditors to be uninformed about specific program and other regulations that apply to the funds they receive. There is also the potential for subrecipients to have incomplete SEFAs in their Single Audit reports submitted to the Commonwealth, and federal funds may not be properly audited at the subrecipient level in accordance with the Single Audit Act and Uniform Guidance. Not evaluating each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward may result in subrecipients using the subaward for unauthorized purposes or in violation of the terms and conditions of the subaward, and state agency monitoring would not detect this noncompliance and ensure it is corrected in a timely manner. Finding 2023 ¬– 023: (continued) Recommendation: DHS and PDA should develop policies and reporting mechanisms to ensure all required federal award information is disseminated to all subrecipients at the time of the subaward to ensure subrecipient compliance with the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 and other applicable federal regulations. In addition, DHS and PDA should correspond with applicable subrecipients to ensure they are aware of the correct federal award information and review applicable subaward documents prior to issuance to ensure federal information is complete and accurate. DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH should implement procedures to adequately document their evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance as cited in 2 CFR Section 200.332 for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. DHS Response: DHS agrees with the finding. DOH Response: DOH agrees with the finding. PDA Response: PDA agrees with the finding. PDOA Response: PDOA agrees with the finding. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs cannot be determined.
Various Agencies Finding 2023 –¬ 023: ALN 10.565, 10.568, and 10.569 – Food Distribution Cluster ALN 93.044, 93.045, and 93.053 – Aging Cluster (including COVID-19) ALN 93.323 – Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (including COVID-19) ALN 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (including COVID-19) ALN 93.658 – Foster Care – Title IV-E (including COVID-19) ALN 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant State Agencies Did Not Identify the Federal Award Information and Applicable Requirements at the Time of the Subaward and Did Not Evaluate Each Subrecipient’s Risk of Noncompliance as Required by the Uniform Grant Guidance (A Similar Condition Was Noted in Prior Year Finding 2022-013) Federal Grant Number(s) and Year(s): 221PA825Y8005 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 221PA825Y8105 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 231PA825Y8005 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023) 231PA825Y8105 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2101PACMC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAHDC5 (12/27/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAHDC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAOACM (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOAHD (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOANS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOASS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAPHC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PASSC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAVAC5 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOACM (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOAHD (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOANS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOASS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASTPH (1/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOACM (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOAHD (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOANS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOASS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), NU50CK000527 (8/01/2019 – 7/31/2024), 2301PATANF (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PATANF (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2201PAFOST (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2301PAFOST (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASOSR (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2301PASOSR (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 applies to the major programs listed above for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Our testing disclosed that the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) did not identify the federal award information and applicable requirements in subrecipient award documents. Additionally, DHS, PDA, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH), and the Pennsylvania Department of Aging (PDOA) did not adequately evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for the purpose of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. This represents an internal control weakness which could cause subrecipients to be improperly informed of federal award information and may result in inadequate monitoring by the state agencies. Also, it could cause the omission or improper identification of program expenditures on subrecipients’ Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFAs). The following chart shows which federal award information required by 2 CFR Section 200 was omitted (as indicated by “No”) from the subrecipient award documents at the time of the subaward and which major programs did not have a state agency evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance. Finding 2023 –¬ 023: (continued) SEE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR CHART/TABLE Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.332, Requirements for pass-through entities, states in part: All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: Finding 2023 – 023: (continued) (1) Federal Award Identification. (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal Award date in section 200.1) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings Number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. (b) Evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F [Audit Requirements] of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency) Management Directive 325.12, Amended – Standards for Enterprise Risk Management in Commonwealth Agencies, adopted the internal control framework outlined in the United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book). The Green Book states in part: Management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives. Management should identify, analyze, and respond to significant changes that could impact the internal control system. Cause: In general, DHS’s and PDA’s processes for subrecipient award monitoring did not identify the omission of required elements from the grant awards. In addition, the risk assessments performed by DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH were not properly documented or not performed. Effect: Excluding the federal grant award information at the time of the subaward may cause subrecipients and their auditors to be uninformed about specific program and other regulations that apply to the funds they receive. There is also the potential for subrecipients to have incomplete SEFAs in their Single Audit reports submitted to the Commonwealth, and federal funds may not be properly audited at the subrecipient level in accordance with the Single Audit Act and Uniform Guidance. Not evaluating each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward may result in subrecipients using the subaward for unauthorized purposes or in violation of the terms and conditions of the subaward, and state agency monitoring would not detect this noncompliance and ensure it is corrected in a timely manner. Finding 2023 ¬– 023: (continued) Recommendation: DHS and PDA should develop policies and reporting mechanisms to ensure all required federal award information is disseminated to all subrecipients at the time of the subaward to ensure subrecipient compliance with the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 and other applicable federal regulations. In addition, DHS and PDA should correspond with applicable subrecipients to ensure they are aware of the correct federal award information and review applicable subaward documents prior to issuance to ensure federal information is complete and accurate. DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH should implement procedures to adequately document their evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance as cited in 2 CFR Section 200.332 for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. DHS Response: DHS agrees with the finding. DOH Response: DOH agrees with the finding. PDA Response: PDA agrees with the finding. PDOA Response: PDOA agrees with the finding. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs cannot be determined.
Various Agencies Finding 2023 –¬ 023: ALN 10.565, 10.568, and 10.569 – Food Distribution Cluster ALN 93.044, 93.045, and 93.053 – Aging Cluster (including COVID-19) ALN 93.323 – Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (including COVID-19) ALN 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (including COVID-19) ALN 93.658 – Foster Care – Title IV-E (including COVID-19) ALN 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant State Agencies Did Not Identify the Federal Award Information and Applicable Requirements at the Time of the Subaward and Did Not Evaluate Each Subrecipient’s Risk of Noncompliance as Required by the Uniform Grant Guidance (A Similar Condition Was Noted in Prior Year Finding 2022-013) Federal Grant Number(s) and Year(s): 221PA825Y8005 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 221PA825Y8105 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 231PA825Y8005 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023) 231PA825Y8105 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2101PACMC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAHDC5 (12/27/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAHDC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAOACM (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOAHD (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOANS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOASS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAPHC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PASSC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAVAC5 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOACM (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOAHD (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOANS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOASS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASTPH (1/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOACM (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOAHD (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOANS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOASS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), NU50CK000527 (8/01/2019 – 7/31/2024), 2301PATANF (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PATANF (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2201PAFOST (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2301PAFOST (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASOSR (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2301PASOSR (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 applies to the major programs listed above for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Our testing disclosed that the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) did not identify the federal award information and applicable requirements in subrecipient award documents. Additionally, DHS, PDA, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH), and the Pennsylvania Department of Aging (PDOA) did not adequately evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for the purpose of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. This represents an internal control weakness which could cause subrecipients to be improperly informed of federal award information and may result in inadequate monitoring by the state agencies. Also, it could cause the omission or improper identification of program expenditures on subrecipients’ Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFAs). The following chart shows which federal award information required by 2 CFR Section 200 was omitted (as indicated by “No”) from the subrecipient award documents at the time of the subaward and which major programs did not have a state agency evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance. Finding 2023 –¬ 023: (continued) SEE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR CHART/TABLE Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.332, Requirements for pass-through entities, states in part: All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: Finding 2023 – 023: (continued) (1) Federal Award Identification. (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal Award date in section 200.1) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings Number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. (b) Evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F [Audit Requirements] of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency) Management Directive 325.12, Amended – Standards for Enterprise Risk Management in Commonwealth Agencies, adopted the internal control framework outlined in the United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book). The Green Book states in part: Management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives. Management should identify, analyze, and respond to significant changes that could impact the internal control system. Cause: In general, DHS’s and PDA’s processes for subrecipient award monitoring did not identify the omission of required elements from the grant awards. In addition, the risk assessments performed by DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH were not properly documented or not performed. Effect: Excluding the federal grant award information at the time of the subaward may cause subrecipients and their auditors to be uninformed about specific program and other regulations that apply to the funds they receive. There is also the potential for subrecipients to have incomplete SEFAs in their Single Audit reports submitted to the Commonwealth, and federal funds may not be properly audited at the subrecipient level in accordance with the Single Audit Act and Uniform Guidance. Not evaluating each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward may result in subrecipients using the subaward for unauthorized purposes or in violation of the terms and conditions of the subaward, and state agency monitoring would not detect this noncompliance and ensure it is corrected in a timely manner. Finding 2023 ¬– 023: (continued) Recommendation: DHS and PDA should develop policies and reporting mechanisms to ensure all required federal award information is disseminated to all subrecipients at the time of the subaward to ensure subrecipient compliance with the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 and other applicable federal regulations. In addition, DHS and PDA should correspond with applicable subrecipients to ensure they are aware of the correct federal award information and review applicable subaward documents prior to issuance to ensure federal information is complete and accurate. DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH should implement procedures to adequately document their evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance as cited in 2 CFR Section 200.332 for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. DHS Response: DHS agrees with the finding. DOH Response: DOH agrees with the finding. PDA Response: PDA agrees with the finding. PDOA Response: PDOA agrees with the finding. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs cannot be determined.
Various Agencies Finding 2023 –¬ 023: ALN 10.565, 10.568, and 10.569 – Food Distribution Cluster ALN 93.044, 93.045, and 93.053 – Aging Cluster (including COVID-19) ALN 93.323 – Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (including COVID-19) ALN 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (including COVID-19) ALN 93.658 – Foster Care – Title IV-E (including COVID-19) ALN 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant State Agencies Did Not Identify the Federal Award Information and Applicable Requirements at the Time of the Subaward and Did Not Evaluate Each Subrecipient’s Risk of Noncompliance as Required by the Uniform Grant Guidance (A Similar Condition Was Noted in Prior Year Finding 2022-013) Federal Grant Number(s) and Year(s): 221PA825Y8005 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 221PA825Y8105 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 231PA825Y8005 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023) 231PA825Y8105 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2101PACMC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAHDC5 (12/27/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAHDC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAOACM (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOAHD (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOANS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOASS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAPHC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PASSC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAVAC5 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOACM (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOAHD (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOANS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOASS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASTPH (1/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOACM (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOAHD (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOANS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOASS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), NU50CK000527 (8/01/2019 – 7/31/2024), 2301PATANF (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PATANF (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2201PAFOST (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2301PAFOST (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASOSR (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2301PASOSR (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 applies to the major programs listed above for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Our testing disclosed that the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) did not identify the federal award information and applicable requirements in subrecipient award documents. Additionally, DHS, PDA, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH), and the Pennsylvania Department of Aging (PDOA) did not adequately evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for the purpose of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. This represents an internal control weakness which could cause subrecipients to be improperly informed of federal award information and may result in inadequate monitoring by the state agencies. Also, it could cause the omission or improper identification of program expenditures on subrecipients’ Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFAs). The following chart shows which federal award information required by 2 CFR Section 200 was omitted (as indicated by “No”) from the subrecipient award documents at the time of the subaward and which major programs did not have a state agency evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance. Finding 2023 –¬ 023: (continued) SEE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR CHART/TABLE Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.332, Requirements for pass-through entities, states in part: All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: Finding 2023 – 023: (continued) (1) Federal Award Identification. (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal Award date in section 200.1) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings Number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. (b) Evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F [Audit Requirements] of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency) Management Directive 325.12, Amended – Standards for Enterprise Risk Management in Commonwealth Agencies, adopted the internal control framework outlined in the United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book). The Green Book states in part: Management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives. Management should identify, analyze, and respond to significant changes that could impact the internal control system. Cause: In general, DHS’s and PDA’s processes for subrecipient award monitoring did not identify the omission of required elements from the grant awards. In addition, the risk assessments performed by DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH were not properly documented or not performed. Effect: Excluding the federal grant award information at the time of the subaward may cause subrecipients and their auditors to be uninformed about specific program and other regulations that apply to the funds they receive. There is also the potential for subrecipients to have incomplete SEFAs in their Single Audit reports submitted to the Commonwealth, and federal funds may not be properly audited at the subrecipient level in accordance with the Single Audit Act and Uniform Guidance. Not evaluating each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward may result in subrecipients using the subaward for unauthorized purposes or in violation of the terms and conditions of the subaward, and state agency monitoring would not detect this noncompliance and ensure it is corrected in a timely manner. Finding 2023 ¬– 023: (continued) Recommendation: DHS and PDA should develop policies and reporting mechanisms to ensure all required federal award information is disseminated to all subrecipients at the time of the subaward to ensure subrecipient compliance with the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 and other applicable federal regulations. In addition, DHS and PDA should correspond with applicable subrecipients to ensure they are aware of the correct federal award information and review applicable subaward documents prior to issuance to ensure federal information is complete and accurate. DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH should implement procedures to adequately document their evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance as cited in 2 CFR Section 200.332 for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. DHS Response: DHS agrees with the finding. DOH Response: DOH agrees with the finding. PDA Response: PDA agrees with the finding. PDOA Response: PDOA agrees with the finding. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs cannot be determined.
Various Agencies Finding 2023 –¬ 023: ALN 10.565, 10.568, and 10.569 – Food Distribution Cluster ALN 93.044, 93.045, and 93.053 – Aging Cluster (including COVID-19) ALN 93.323 – Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (including COVID-19) ALN 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (including COVID-19) ALN 93.658 – Foster Care – Title IV-E (including COVID-19) ALN 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant State Agencies Did Not Identify the Federal Award Information and Applicable Requirements at the Time of the Subaward and Did Not Evaluate Each Subrecipient’s Risk of Noncompliance as Required by the Uniform Grant Guidance (A Similar Condition Was Noted in Prior Year Finding 2022-013) Federal Grant Number(s) and Year(s): 221PA825Y8005 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 221PA825Y8105 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 231PA825Y8005 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023) 231PA825Y8105 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2101PACMC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAHDC5 (12/27/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAHDC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAOACM (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOAHD (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOANS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOASS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAPHC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PASSC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAVAC5 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOACM (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOAHD (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOANS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOASS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASTPH (1/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOACM (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOAHD (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOANS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOASS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), NU50CK000527 (8/01/2019 – 7/31/2024), 2301PATANF (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PATANF (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2201PAFOST (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2301PAFOST (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASOSR (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2301PASOSR (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 applies to the major programs listed above for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Our testing disclosed that the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) did not identify the federal award information and applicable requirements in subrecipient award documents. Additionally, DHS, PDA, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH), and the Pennsylvania Department of Aging (PDOA) did not adequately evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for the purpose of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. This represents an internal control weakness which could cause subrecipients to be improperly informed of federal award information and may result in inadequate monitoring by the state agencies. Also, it could cause the omission or improper identification of program expenditures on subrecipients’ Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFAs). The following chart shows which federal award information required by 2 CFR Section 200 was omitted (as indicated by “No”) from the subrecipient award documents at the time of the subaward and which major programs did not have a state agency evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance. Finding 2023 –¬ 023: (continued) SEE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR CHART/TABLE Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.332, Requirements for pass-through entities, states in part: All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: Finding 2023 – 023: (continued) (1) Federal Award Identification. (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal Award date in section 200.1) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings Number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. (b) Evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F [Audit Requirements] of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency) Management Directive 325.12, Amended – Standards for Enterprise Risk Management in Commonwealth Agencies, adopted the internal control framework outlined in the United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book). The Green Book states in part: Management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives. Management should identify, analyze, and respond to significant changes that could impact the internal control system. Cause: In general, DHS’s and PDA’s processes for subrecipient award monitoring did not identify the omission of required elements from the grant awards. In addition, the risk assessments performed by DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH were not properly documented or not performed. Effect: Excluding the federal grant award information at the time of the subaward may cause subrecipients and their auditors to be uninformed about specific program and other regulations that apply to the funds they receive. There is also the potential for subrecipients to have incomplete SEFAs in their Single Audit reports submitted to the Commonwealth, and federal funds may not be properly audited at the subrecipient level in accordance with the Single Audit Act and Uniform Guidance. Not evaluating each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward may result in subrecipients using the subaward for unauthorized purposes or in violation of the terms and conditions of the subaward, and state agency monitoring would not detect this noncompliance and ensure it is corrected in a timely manner. Finding 2023 ¬– 023: (continued) Recommendation: DHS and PDA should develop policies and reporting mechanisms to ensure all required federal award information is disseminated to all subrecipients at the time of the subaward to ensure subrecipient compliance with the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 and other applicable federal regulations. In addition, DHS and PDA should correspond with applicable subrecipients to ensure they are aware of the correct federal award information and review applicable subaward documents prior to issuance to ensure federal information is complete and accurate. DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH should implement procedures to adequately document their evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance as cited in 2 CFR Section 200.332 for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. DHS Response: DHS agrees with the finding. DOH Response: DOH agrees with the finding. PDA Response: PDA agrees with the finding. PDOA Response: PDOA agrees with the finding. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs cannot be determined.
Various Agencies Finding 2023 –¬ 023: ALN 10.565, 10.568, and 10.569 – Food Distribution Cluster ALN 93.044, 93.045, and 93.053 – Aging Cluster (including COVID-19) ALN 93.323 – Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (including COVID-19) ALN 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (including COVID-19) ALN 93.658 – Foster Care – Title IV-E (including COVID-19) ALN 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant State Agencies Did Not Identify the Federal Award Information and Applicable Requirements at the Time of the Subaward and Did Not Evaluate Each Subrecipient’s Risk of Noncompliance as Required by the Uniform Grant Guidance (A Similar Condition Was Noted in Prior Year Finding 2022-013) Federal Grant Number(s) and Year(s): 221PA825Y8005 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 221PA825Y8105 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 231PA825Y8005 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023) 231PA825Y8105 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2101PACMC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAHDC5 (12/27/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAHDC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAOACM (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOAHD (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOANS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOASS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAPHC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PASSC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAVAC5 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOACM (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOAHD (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOANS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOASS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASTPH (1/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOACM (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOAHD (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOANS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOASS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), NU50CK000527 (8/01/2019 – 7/31/2024), 2301PATANF (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PATANF (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2201PAFOST (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2301PAFOST (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASOSR (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2301PASOSR (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 applies to the major programs listed above for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Our testing disclosed that the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) did not identify the federal award information and applicable requirements in subrecipient award documents. Additionally, DHS, PDA, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH), and the Pennsylvania Department of Aging (PDOA) did not adequately evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for the purpose of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. This represents an internal control weakness which could cause subrecipients to be improperly informed of federal award information and may result in inadequate monitoring by the state agencies. Also, it could cause the omission or improper identification of program expenditures on subrecipients’ Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFAs). The following chart shows which federal award information required by 2 CFR Section 200 was omitted (as indicated by “No”) from the subrecipient award documents at the time of the subaward and which major programs did not have a state agency evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance. Finding 2023 –¬ 023: (continued) SEE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR CHART/TABLE Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.332, Requirements for pass-through entities, states in part: All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: Finding 2023 – 023: (continued) (1) Federal Award Identification. (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal Award date in section 200.1) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings Number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. (b) Evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F [Audit Requirements] of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency) Management Directive 325.12, Amended – Standards for Enterprise Risk Management in Commonwealth Agencies, adopted the internal control framework outlined in the United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book). The Green Book states in part: Management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives. Management should identify, analyze, and respond to significant changes that could impact the internal control system. Cause: In general, DHS’s and PDA’s processes for subrecipient award monitoring did not identify the omission of required elements from the grant awards. In addition, the risk assessments performed by DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH were not properly documented or not performed. Effect: Excluding the federal grant award information at the time of the subaward may cause subrecipients and their auditors to be uninformed about specific program and other regulations that apply to the funds they receive. There is also the potential for subrecipients to have incomplete SEFAs in their Single Audit reports submitted to the Commonwealth, and federal funds may not be properly audited at the subrecipient level in accordance with the Single Audit Act and Uniform Guidance. Not evaluating each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward may result in subrecipients using the subaward for unauthorized purposes or in violation of the terms and conditions of the subaward, and state agency monitoring would not detect this noncompliance and ensure it is corrected in a timely manner. Finding 2023 ¬– 023: (continued) Recommendation: DHS and PDA should develop policies and reporting mechanisms to ensure all required federal award information is disseminated to all subrecipients at the time of the subaward to ensure subrecipient compliance with the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 and other applicable federal regulations. In addition, DHS and PDA should correspond with applicable subrecipients to ensure they are aware of the correct federal award information and review applicable subaward documents prior to issuance to ensure federal information is complete and accurate. DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH should implement procedures to adequately document their evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance as cited in 2 CFR Section 200.332 for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. DHS Response: DHS agrees with the finding. DOH Response: DOH agrees with the finding. PDA Response: PDA agrees with the finding. PDOA Response: PDOA agrees with the finding. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs cannot be determined.
Various Agencies Finding 2023 –¬ 023: ALN 10.565, 10.568, and 10.569 – Food Distribution Cluster ALN 93.044, 93.045, and 93.053 – Aging Cluster (including COVID-19) ALN 93.323 – Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (including COVID-19) ALN 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (including COVID-19) ALN 93.658 – Foster Care – Title IV-E (including COVID-19) ALN 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant State Agencies Did Not Identify the Federal Award Information and Applicable Requirements at the Time of the Subaward and Did Not Evaluate Each Subrecipient’s Risk of Noncompliance as Required by the Uniform Grant Guidance (A Similar Condition Was Noted in Prior Year Finding 2022-013) Federal Grant Number(s) and Year(s): 221PA825Y8005 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 221PA825Y8105 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 231PA825Y8005 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023) 231PA825Y8105 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2101PACMC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAHDC5 (12/27/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAHDC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAOACM (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOAHD (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOANS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOASS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAPHC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PASSC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAVAC5 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOACM (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOAHD (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOANS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOASS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASTPH (1/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOACM (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOAHD (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOANS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOASS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), NU50CK000527 (8/01/2019 – 7/31/2024), 2301PATANF (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PATANF (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2201PAFOST (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2301PAFOST (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASOSR (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2301PASOSR (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 applies to the major programs listed above for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Our testing disclosed that the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) did not identify the federal award information and applicable requirements in subrecipient award documents. Additionally, DHS, PDA, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH), and the Pennsylvania Department of Aging (PDOA) did not adequately evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for the purpose of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. This represents an internal control weakness which could cause subrecipients to be improperly informed of federal award information and may result in inadequate monitoring by the state agencies. Also, it could cause the omission or improper identification of program expenditures on subrecipients’ Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFAs). The following chart shows which federal award information required by 2 CFR Section 200 was omitted (as indicated by “No”) from the subrecipient award documents at the time of the subaward and which major programs did not have a state agency evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance. Finding 2023 –¬ 023: (continued) SEE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR CHART/TABLE Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.332, Requirements for pass-through entities, states in part: All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: Finding 2023 – 023: (continued) (1) Federal Award Identification. (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal Award date in section 200.1) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings Number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. (b) Evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F [Audit Requirements] of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency) Management Directive 325.12, Amended – Standards for Enterprise Risk Management in Commonwealth Agencies, adopted the internal control framework outlined in the United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book). The Green Book states in part: Management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives. Management should identify, analyze, and respond to significant changes that could impact the internal control system. Cause: In general, DHS’s and PDA’s processes for subrecipient award monitoring did not identify the omission of required elements from the grant awards. In addition, the risk assessments performed by DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH were not properly documented or not performed. Effect: Excluding the federal grant award information at the time of the subaward may cause subrecipients and their auditors to be uninformed about specific program and other regulations that apply to the funds they receive. There is also the potential for subrecipients to have incomplete SEFAs in their Single Audit reports submitted to the Commonwealth, and federal funds may not be properly audited at the subrecipient level in accordance with the Single Audit Act and Uniform Guidance. Not evaluating each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward may result in subrecipients using the subaward for unauthorized purposes or in violation of the terms and conditions of the subaward, and state agency monitoring would not detect this noncompliance and ensure it is corrected in a timely manner. Finding 2023 ¬– 023: (continued) Recommendation: DHS and PDA should develop policies and reporting mechanisms to ensure all required federal award information is disseminated to all subrecipients at the time of the subaward to ensure subrecipient compliance with the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 and other applicable federal regulations. In addition, DHS and PDA should correspond with applicable subrecipients to ensure they are aware of the correct federal award information and review applicable subaward documents prior to issuance to ensure federal information is complete and accurate. DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH should implement procedures to adequately document their evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance as cited in 2 CFR Section 200.332 for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. DHS Response: DHS agrees with the finding. DOH Response: DOH agrees with the finding. PDA Response: PDA agrees with the finding. PDOA Response: PDOA agrees with the finding. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs cannot be determined.
Various Agencies Finding 2023 –¬ 023: ALN 10.565, 10.568, and 10.569 – Food Distribution Cluster ALN 93.044, 93.045, and 93.053 – Aging Cluster (including COVID-19) ALN 93.323 – Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (including COVID-19) ALN 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (including COVID-19) ALN 93.658 – Foster Care – Title IV-E (including COVID-19) ALN 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant State Agencies Did Not Identify the Federal Award Information and Applicable Requirements at the Time of the Subaward and Did Not Evaluate Each Subrecipient’s Risk of Noncompliance as Required by the Uniform Grant Guidance (A Similar Condition Was Noted in Prior Year Finding 2022-013) Federal Grant Number(s) and Year(s): 221PA825Y8005 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 221PA825Y8105 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 231PA825Y8005 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023) 231PA825Y8105 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2101PACMC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAHDC5 (12/27/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAHDC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAOACM (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOAHD (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOANS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOASS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAPHC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PASSC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAVAC5 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOACM (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOAHD (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOANS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOASS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASTPH (1/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOACM (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOAHD (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOANS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOASS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), NU50CK000527 (8/01/2019 – 7/31/2024), 2301PATANF (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PATANF (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2201PAFOST (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2301PAFOST (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASOSR (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2301PASOSR (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 applies to the major programs listed above for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Our testing disclosed that the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) did not identify the federal award information and applicable requirements in subrecipient award documents. Additionally, DHS, PDA, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH), and the Pennsylvania Department of Aging (PDOA) did not adequately evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for the purpose of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. This represents an internal control weakness which could cause subrecipients to be improperly informed of federal award information and may result in inadequate monitoring by the state agencies. Also, it could cause the omission or improper identification of program expenditures on subrecipients’ Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFAs). The following chart shows which federal award information required by 2 CFR Section 200 was omitted (as indicated by “No”) from the subrecipient award documents at the time of the subaward and which major programs did not have a state agency evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance. Finding 2023 –¬ 023: (continued) SEE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR CHART/TABLE Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.332, Requirements for pass-through entities, states in part: All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: Finding 2023 – 023: (continued) (1) Federal Award Identification. (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal Award date in section 200.1) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings Number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. (b) Evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F [Audit Requirements] of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency) Management Directive 325.12, Amended – Standards for Enterprise Risk Management in Commonwealth Agencies, adopted the internal control framework outlined in the United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book). The Green Book states in part: Management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives. Management should identify, analyze, and respond to significant changes that could impact the internal control system. Cause: In general, DHS’s and PDA’s processes for subrecipient award monitoring did not identify the omission of required elements from the grant awards. In addition, the risk assessments performed by DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH were not properly documented or not performed. Effect: Excluding the federal grant award information at the time of the subaward may cause subrecipients and their auditors to be uninformed about specific program and other regulations that apply to the funds they receive. There is also the potential for subrecipients to have incomplete SEFAs in their Single Audit reports submitted to the Commonwealth, and federal funds may not be properly audited at the subrecipient level in accordance with the Single Audit Act and Uniform Guidance. Not evaluating each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward may result in subrecipients using the subaward for unauthorized purposes or in violation of the terms and conditions of the subaward, and state agency monitoring would not detect this noncompliance and ensure it is corrected in a timely manner. Finding 2023 ¬– 023: (continued) Recommendation: DHS and PDA should develop policies and reporting mechanisms to ensure all required federal award information is disseminated to all subrecipients at the time of the subaward to ensure subrecipient compliance with the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 and other applicable federal regulations. In addition, DHS and PDA should correspond with applicable subrecipients to ensure they are aware of the correct federal award information and review applicable subaward documents prior to issuance to ensure federal information is complete and accurate. DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH should implement procedures to adequately document their evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance as cited in 2 CFR Section 200.332 for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. DHS Response: DHS agrees with the finding. DOH Response: DOH agrees with the finding. PDA Response: PDA agrees with the finding. PDOA Response: PDOA agrees with the finding. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs cannot be determined.
Various Agencies Finding 2023 –¬ 023: ALN 10.565, 10.568, and 10.569 – Food Distribution Cluster ALN 93.044, 93.045, and 93.053 – Aging Cluster (including COVID-19) ALN 93.323 – Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (including COVID-19) ALN 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (including COVID-19) ALN 93.658 – Foster Care – Title IV-E (including COVID-19) ALN 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant State Agencies Did Not Identify the Federal Award Information and Applicable Requirements at the Time of the Subaward and Did Not Evaluate Each Subrecipient’s Risk of Noncompliance as Required by the Uniform Grant Guidance (A Similar Condition Was Noted in Prior Year Finding 2022-013) Federal Grant Number(s) and Year(s): 221PA825Y8005 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 221PA825Y8105 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 231PA825Y8005 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023) 231PA825Y8105 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2101PACMC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAHDC5 (12/27/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAHDC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAOACM (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOAHD (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOANS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOASS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAPHC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PASSC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAVAC5 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOACM (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOAHD (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOANS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOASS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASTPH (1/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOACM (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOAHD (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOANS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOASS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), NU50CK000527 (8/01/2019 – 7/31/2024), 2301PATANF (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PATANF (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2201PAFOST (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2301PAFOST (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASOSR (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2301PASOSR (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 applies to the major programs listed above for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Our testing disclosed that the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) did not identify the federal award information and applicable requirements in subrecipient award documents. Additionally, DHS, PDA, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH), and the Pennsylvania Department of Aging (PDOA) did not adequately evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for the purpose of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. This represents an internal control weakness which could cause subrecipients to be improperly informed of federal award information and may result in inadequate monitoring by the state agencies. Also, it could cause the omission or improper identification of program expenditures on subrecipients’ Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFAs). The following chart shows which federal award information required by 2 CFR Section 200 was omitted (as indicated by “No”) from the subrecipient award documents at the time of the subaward and which major programs did not have a state agency evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance. Finding 2023 –¬ 023: (continued) SEE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR CHART/TABLE Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.332, Requirements for pass-through entities, states in part: All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: Finding 2023 – 023: (continued) (1) Federal Award Identification. (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal Award date in section 200.1) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings Number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. (b) Evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F [Audit Requirements] of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency) Management Directive 325.12, Amended – Standards for Enterprise Risk Management in Commonwealth Agencies, adopted the internal control framework outlined in the United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book). The Green Book states in part: Management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives. Management should identify, analyze, and respond to significant changes that could impact the internal control system. Cause: In general, DHS’s and PDA’s processes for subrecipient award monitoring did not identify the omission of required elements from the grant awards. In addition, the risk assessments performed by DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH were not properly documented or not performed. Effect: Excluding the federal grant award information at the time of the subaward may cause subrecipients and their auditors to be uninformed about specific program and other regulations that apply to the funds they receive. There is also the potential for subrecipients to have incomplete SEFAs in their Single Audit reports submitted to the Commonwealth, and federal funds may not be properly audited at the subrecipient level in accordance with the Single Audit Act and Uniform Guidance. Not evaluating each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward may result in subrecipients using the subaward for unauthorized purposes or in violation of the terms and conditions of the subaward, and state agency monitoring would not detect this noncompliance and ensure it is corrected in a timely manner. Finding 2023 ¬– 023: (continued) Recommendation: DHS and PDA should develop policies and reporting mechanisms to ensure all required federal award information is disseminated to all subrecipients at the time of the subaward to ensure subrecipient compliance with the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 and other applicable federal regulations. In addition, DHS and PDA should correspond with applicable subrecipients to ensure they are aware of the correct federal award information and review applicable subaward documents prior to issuance to ensure federal information is complete and accurate. DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH should implement procedures to adequately document their evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance as cited in 2 CFR Section 200.332 for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. DHS Response: DHS agrees with the finding. DOH Response: DOH agrees with the finding. PDA Response: PDA agrees with the finding. PDOA Response: PDOA agrees with the finding. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs cannot be determined.
Various Agencies Finding 2023 –¬ 023: ALN 10.565, 10.568, and 10.569 – Food Distribution Cluster ALN 93.044, 93.045, and 93.053 – Aging Cluster (including COVID-19) ALN 93.323 – Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (including COVID-19) ALN 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (including COVID-19) ALN 93.658 – Foster Care – Title IV-E (including COVID-19) ALN 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant State Agencies Did Not Identify the Federal Award Information and Applicable Requirements at the Time of the Subaward and Did Not Evaluate Each Subrecipient’s Risk of Noncompliance as Required by the Uniform Grant Guidance (A Similar Condition Was Noted in Prior Year Finding 2022-013) Federal Grant Number(s) and Year(s): 221PA825Y8005 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 221PA825Y8105 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 231PA825Y8005 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023) 231PA825Y8105 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2101PACMC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAHDC5 (12/27/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAHDC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAOACM (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOAHD (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOANS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOASS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAPHC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PASSC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAVAC5 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOACM (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOAHD (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOANS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOASS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASTPH (1/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOACM (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOAHD (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOANS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOASS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), NU50CK000527 (8/01/2019 – 7/31/2024), 2301PATANF (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PATANF (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2201PAFOST (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2301PAFOST (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASOSR (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2301PASOSR (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 applies to the major programs listed above for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Our testing disclosed that the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) did not identify the federal award information and applicable requirements in subrecipient award documents. Additionally, DHS, PDA, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH), and the Pennsylvania Department of Aging (PDOA) did not adequately evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for the purpose of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. This represents an internal control weakness which could cause subrecipients to be improperly informed of federal award information and may result in inadequate monitoring by the state agencies. Also, it could cause the omission or improper identification of program expenditures on subrecipients’ Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFAs). The following chart shows which federal award information required by 2 CFR Section 200 was omitted (as indicated by “No”) from the subrecipient award documents at the time of the subaward and which major programs did not have a state agency evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance. Finding 2023 –¬ 023: (continued) SEE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR CHART/TABLE Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.332, Requirements for pass-through entities, states in part: All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: Finding 2023 – 023: (continued) (1) Federal Award Identification. (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal Award date in section 200.1) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings Number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. (b) Evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F [Audit Requirements] of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency) Management Directive 325.12, Amended – Standards for Enterprise Risk Management in Commonwealth Agencies, adopted the internal control framework outlined in the United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book). The Green Book states in part: Management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives. Management should identify, analyze, and respond to significant changes that could impact the internal control system. Cause: In general, DHS’s and PDA’s processes for subrecipient award monitoring did not identify the omission of required elements from the grant awards. In addition, the risk assessments performed by DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH were not properly documented or not performed. Effect: Excluding the federal grant award information at the time of the subaward may cause subrecipients and their auditors to be uninformed about specific program and other regulations that apply to the funds they receive. There is also the potential for subrecipients to have incomplete SEFAs in their Single Audit reports submitted to the Commonwealth, and federal funds may not be properly audited at the subrecipient level in accordance with the Single Audit Act and Uniform Guidance. Not evaluating each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward may result in subrecipients using the subaward for unauthorized purposes or in violation of the terms and conditions of the subaward, and state agency monitoring would not detect this noncompliance and ensure it is corrected in a timely manner. Finding 2023 ¬– 023: (continued) Recommendation: DHS and PDA should develop policies and reporting mechanisms to ensure all required federal award information is disseminated to all subrecipients at the time of the subaward to ensure subrecipient compliance with the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 and other applicable federal regulations. In addition, DHS and PDA should correspond with applicable subrecipients to ensure they are aware of the correct federal award information and review applicable subaward documents prior to issuance to ensure federal information is complete and accurate. DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH should implement procedures to adequately document their evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance as cited in 2 CFR Section 200.332 for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. DHS Response: DHS agrees with the finding. DOH Response: DOH agrees with the finding. PDA Response: PDA agrees with the finding. PDOA Response: PDOA agrees with the finding. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs cannot be determined.
Various Agencies Finding 2023 –¬ 023: ALN 10.565, 10.568, and 10.569 – Food Distribution Cluster ALN 93.044, 93.045, and 93.053 – Aging Cluster (including COVID-19) ALN 93.323 – Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (including COVID-19) ALN 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (including COVID-19) ALN 93.658 – Foster Care – Title IV-E (including COVID-19) ALN 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant State Agencies Did Not Identify the Federal Award Information and Applicable Requirements at the Time of the Subaward and Did Not Evaluate Each Subrecipient’s Risk of Noncompliance as Required by the Uniform Grant Guidance (A Similar Condition Was Noted in Prior Year Finding 2022-013) Federal Grant Number(s) and Year(s): 221PA825Y8005 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 221PA825Y8105 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 231PA825Y8005 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023) 231PA825Y8105 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2101PACMC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAHDC5 (12/27/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAHDC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAOACM (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOAHD (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOANS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOASS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAPHC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PASSC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAVAC5 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOACM (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOAHD (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOANS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOASS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASTPH (1/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOACM (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOAHD (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOANS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOASS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), NU50CK000527 (8/01/2019 – 7/31/2024), 2301PATANF (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PATANF (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2201PAFOST (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2301PAFOST (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASOSR (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2301PASOSR (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 applies to the major programs listed above for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Our testing disclosed that the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) did not identify the federal award information and applicable requirements in subrecipient award documents. Additionally, DHS, PDA, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH), and the Pennsylvania Department of Aging (PDOA) did not adequately evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for the purpose of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. This represents an internal control weakness which could cause subrecipients to be improperly informed of federal award information and may result in inadequate monitoring by the state agencies. Also, it could cause the omission or improper identification of program expenditures on subrecipients’ Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFAs). The following chart shows which federal award information required by 2 CFR Section 200 was omitted (as indicated by “No”) from the subrecipient award documents at the time of the subaward and which major programs did not have a state agency evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance. Finding 2023 –¬ 023: (continued) SEE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR CHART/TABLE Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.332, Requirements for pass-through entities, states in part: All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: Finding 2023 – 023: (continued) (1) Federal Award Identification. (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal Award date in section 200.1) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings Number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. (b) Evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F [Audit Requirements] of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency) Management Directive 325.12, Amended – Standards for Enterprise Risk Management in Commonwealth Agencies, adopted the internal control framework outlined in the United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book). The Green Book states in part: Management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives. Management should identify, analyze, and respond to significant changes that could impact the internal control system. Cause: In general, DHS’s and PDA’s processes for subrecipient award monitoring did not identify the omission of required elements from the grant awards. In addition, the risk assessments performed by DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH were not properly documented or not performed. Effect: Excluding the federal grant award information at the time of the subaward may cause subrecipients and their auditors to be uninformed about specific program and other regulations that apply to the funds they receive. There is also the potential for subrecipients to have incomplete SEFAs in their Single Audit reports submitted to the Commonwealth, and federal funds may not be properly audited at the subrecipient level in accordance with the Single Audit Act and Uniform Guidance. Not evaluating each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward may result in subrecipients using the subaward for unauthorized purposes or in violation of the terms and conditions of the subaward, and state agency monitoring would not detect this noncompliance and ensure it is corrected in a timely manner. Finding 2023 ¬– 023: (continued) Recommendation: DHS and PDA should develop policies and reporting mechanisms to ensure all required federal award information is disseminated to all subrecipients at the time of the subaward to ensure subrecipient compliance with the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 and other applicable federal regulations. In addition, DHS and PDA should correspond with applicable subrecipients to ensure they are aware of the correct federal award information and review applicable subaward documents prior to issuance to ensure federal information is complete and accurate. DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH should implement procedures to adequately document their evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance as cited in 2 CFR Section 200.332 for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. DHS Response: DHS agrees with the finding. DOH Response: DOH agrees with the finding. PDA Response: PDA agrees with the finding. PDOA Response: PDOA agrees with the finding. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs cannot be determined.
Various Agencies Finding 2023 –¬ 023: ALN 10.565, 10.568, and 10.569 – Food Distribution Cluster ALN 93.044, 93.045, and 93.053 – Aging Cluster (including COVID-19) ALN 93.323 – Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (including COVID-19) ALN 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (including COVID-19) ALN 93.658 – Foster Care – Title IV-E (including COVID-19) ALN 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant State Agencies Did Not Identify the Federal Award Information and Applicable Requirements at the Time of the Subaward and Did Not Evaluate Each Subrecipient’s Risk of Noncompliance as Required by the Uniform Grant Guidance (A Similar Condition Was Noted in Prior Year Finding 2022-013) Federal Grant Number(s) and Year(s): 221PA825Y8005 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 221PA825Y8105 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 231PA825Y8005 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023) 231PA825Y8105 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2101PACMC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAHDC5 (12/27/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAHDC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAOACM (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOAHD (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOANS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOASS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAPHC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PASSC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAVAC5 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOACM (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOAHD (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOANS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOASS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASTPH (1/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOACM (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOAHD (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOANS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOASS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), NU50CK000527 (8/01/2019 – 7/31/2024), 2301PATANF (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PATANF (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2201PAFOST (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2301PAFOST (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASOSR (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2301PASOSR (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 applies to the major programs listed above for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Our testing disclosed that the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) did not identify the federal award information and applicable requirements in subrecipient award documents. Additionally, DHS, PDA, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH), and the Pennsylvania Department of Aging (PDOA) did not adequately evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for the purpose of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. This represents an internal control weakness which could cause subrecipients to be improperly informed of federal award information and may result in inadequate monitoring by the state agencies. Also, it could cause the omission or improper identification of program expenditures on subrecipients’ Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFAs). The following chart shows which federal award information required by 2 CFR Section 200 was omitted (as indicated by “No”) from the subrecipient award documents at the time of the subaward and which major programs did not have a state agency evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance. Finding 2023 –¬ 023: (continued) SEE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR CHART/TABLE Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.332, Requirements for pass-through entities, states in part: All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: Finding 2023 – 023: (continued) (1) Federal Award Identification. (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal Award date in section 200.1) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings Number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. (b) Evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F [Audit Requirements] of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency) Management Directive 325.12, Amended – Standards for Enterprise Risk Management in Commonwealth Agencies, adopted the internal control framework outlined in the United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book). The Green Book states in part: Management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives. Management should identify, analyze, and respond to significant changes that could impact the internal control system. Cause: In general, DHS’s and PDA’s processes for subrecipient award monitoring did not identify the omission of required elements from the grant awards. In addition, the risk assessments performed by DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH were not properly documented or not performed. Effect: Excluding the federal grant award information at the time of the subaward may cause subrecipients and their auditors to be uninformed about specific program and other regulations that apply to the funds they receive. There is also the potential for subrecipients to have incomplete SEFAs in their Single Audit reports submitted to the Commonwealth, and federal funds may not be properly audited at the subrecipient level in accordance with the Single Audit Act and Uniform Guidance. Not evaluating each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward may result in subrecipients using the subaward for unauthorized purposes or in violation of the terms and conditions of the subaward, and state agency monitoring would not detect this noncompliance and ensure it is corrected in a timely manner. Finding 2023 ¬– 023: (continued) Recommendation: DHS and PDA should develop policies and reporting mechanisms to ensure all required federal award information is disseminated to all subrecipients at the time of the subaward to ensure subrecipient compliance with the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 and other applicable federal regulations. In addition, DHS and PDA should correspond with applicable subrecipients to ensure they are aware of the correct federal award information and review applicable subaward documents prior to issuance to ensure federal information is complete and accurate. DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH should implement procedures to adequately document their evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance as cited in 2 CFR Section 200.332 for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. DHS Response: DHS agrees with the finding. DOH Response: DOH agrees with the finding. PDA Response: PDA agrees with the finding. PDOA Response: PDOA agrees with the finding. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs cannot be determined.
Various Agencies Finding 2023 –¬ 023: ALN 10.565, 10.568, and 10.569 – Food Distribution Cluster ALN 93.044, 93.045, and 93.053 – Aging Cluster (including COVID-19) ALN 93.323 – Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (including COVID-19) ALN 93.558 – Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (including COVID-19) ALN 93.658 – Foster Care – Title IV-E (including COVID-19) ALN 93.667 – Social Services Block Grant State Agencies Did Not Identify the Federal Award Information and Applicable Requirements at the Time of the Subaward and Did Not Evaluate Each Subrecipient’s Risk of Noncompliance as Required by the Uniform Grant Guidance (A Similar Condition Was Noted in Prior Year Finding 2022-013) Federal Grant Number(s) and Year(s): 221PA825Y8005 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 221PA825Y8105 (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 231PA825Y8005 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023) 231PA825Y8105 (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2101PACMC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAHDC5 (12/27/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAHDC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAOACM (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOAHD (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOANS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAOASS (10/01/2020 – 9/30/2023), 2101PAPHC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PASSC6 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2024), 2101PAVAC5 (4/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOACM (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOAHD (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOANS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PAOASS (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASTPH (1/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOACM (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOAHD (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOANS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), 2301PAOASS (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024), NU50CK000527 (8/01/2019 – 7/31/2024), 2301PATANF (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PATANF (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2201PAFOST (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2022), 2301PAFOST (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2023), 2201PASOSR (10/01/2021 – 9/30/2023), 2301PASOSR (10/01/2022 – 9/30/2024) Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Condition: The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 applies to the major programs listed above for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Our testing disclosed that the Pennsylvania Department of Human Services (DHS) and the Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture (PDA) did not identify the federal award information and applicable requirements in subrecipient award documents. Additionally, DHS, PDA, the Pennsylvania Department of Health (DOH), and the Pennsylvania Department of Aging (PDOA) did not adequately evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for the purpose of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. This represents an internal control weakness which could cause subrecipients to be improperly informed of federal award information and may result in inadequate monitoring by the state agencies. Also, it could cause the omission or improper identification of program expenditures on subrecipients’ Schedules of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFAs). The following chart shows which federal award information required by 2 CFR Section 200 was omitted (as indicated by “No”) from the subrecipient award documents at the time of the subaward and which major programs did not have a state agency evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance. Finding 2023 –¬ 023: (continued) SEE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS FOR CHART/TABLE Criteria: 2 CFR Section 200.332, Requirements for pass-through entities, states in part: All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: Finding 2023 – 023: (continued) (1) Federal Award Identification. (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal Award date in section 200.1) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings Number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. (b) Evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F [Audit Requirements] of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency) Management Directive 325.12, Amended – Standards for Enterprise Risk Management in Commonwealth Agencies, adopted the internal control framework outlined in the United States Government Accountability Office’s Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government (Green Book). The Green Book states in part: Management should identify, analyze, and respond to risks related to achieving the defined objectives. Management should identify, analyze, and respond to significant changes that could impact the internal control system. Cause: In general, DHS’s and PDA’s processes for subrecipient award monitoring did not identify the omission of required elements from the grant awards. In addition, the risk assessments performed by DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH were not properly documented or not performed. Effect: Excluding the federal grant award information at the time of the subaward may cause subrecipients and their auditors to be uninformed about specific program and other regulations that apply to the funds they receive. There is also the potential for subrecipients to have incomplete SEFAs in their Single Audit reports submitted to the Commonwealth, and federal funds may not be properly audited at the subrecipient level in accordance with the Single Audit Act and Uniform Guidance. Not evaluating each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward may result in subrecipients using the subaward for unauthorized purposes or in violation of the terms and conditions of the subaward, and state agency monitoring would not detect this noncompliance and ensure it is corrected in a timely manner. Finding 2023 ¬– 023: (continued) Recommendation: DHS and PDA should develop policies and reporting mechanisms to ensure all required federal award information is disseminated to all subrecipients at the time of the subaward to ensure subrecipient compliance with the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200 and other applicable federal regulations. In addition, DHS and PDA should correspond with applicable subrecipients to ensure they are aware of the correct federal award information and review applicable subaward documents prior to issuance to ensure federal information is complete and accurate. DHS, PDA, PDOA, and DOH should implement procedures to adequately document their evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance as cited in 2 CFR Section 200.332 for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward. DHS Response: DHS agrees with the finding. DOH Response: DOH agrees with the finding. PDA Response: PDA agrees with the finding. PDOA Response: PDOA agrees with the finding. Questioned Costs: The amount of questioned costs cannot be determined.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 21-22, FY 22-23 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Repeat Finding A similar comment was in the prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-001. Condition and Context A School Nutrition Cooperative (Co-ops, Education Service Center, Group Purchasing Organization, etc.) that would like to be classified as a School Food Authority (SFA) Cooperative must complete a questionnaire and submit it to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE). Once a questionnaire is received, the IDOE will review the answers to determine a Cooperative's classification. Only Cooperatives that submit the questionnaire and receive a SFA-only Cooperative classification from the IDOE in writing will be considered a SFA only Cooperative for the purposes of the procurement process and procurement reviews. Procurement When the value of goods or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold, the proper purchasing method would be the bidding process, unless the purchase meets certain other qualifications. Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for goods or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is customarily set at $250,000. However, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold of $150,000 or less for when small purchase procedures may be used. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. If it is determined a single source provider can be used for a small purchase, documentation must be retained supporting the determination. The School Corporation purchased bread, diary, produce, and commodities through Region 8 Education Service Center (Region 8). However, Region 8 had not received the SFA-only Cooperative classification from the IDOE for fiscal years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. As such, the School Corporation could not rely on the procurement procedures completed by Region 8 and were responsible for adhering to the procurement requirements for its purchases of bread, dairy, produce, and commodities. Two vendors fell within the small purchase threshold. Both vendors were selected for testing. For one of the two vendors, an adequate number of price or rate quotes were not obtained. The vendor not in compliance, was procured through Region 8; however, as noted above, since Region 8 was not an approved SFA-only Cooperative, the School Corporation could only use Region 8 as one price or rate quote and would have needed to solicit additional bids or quotes to be in compliance. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. The School Corporation purchased bread, diary, produce, and commodities through Region 8 Education Service Center (Region 8). However, Region 8 had not received the SFA-only Cooperative classification from the IDOE for 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. As such, the School Corporation could not rely on Region 8's verification of suspension and debarment and was required to complete its own verification. One covered transaction was identified and tested that equaled or exceeded $25,000. For the noted transaction, the School Corporation did not verify that the vendor was not excluded or disqualified from participation in federal award programs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . ." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use document procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases – (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non- Federal entity. . . . (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance award exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a non-competitive procurement can be used in accordance with § 200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: (1) Sealed bids. A procurement method in which bids are publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price) is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is the lowest in price. The sealed bids method is the preferred method for procuring construction, if the conditions. (i) In order for sealed bidding to be feasible, the following conditions should be present: (A) A complete, adequate, and realistic specification or purchase description is available; (B) Two or more responsible bidders are willing and able to compete effectively for the business; and (C) The procurement lends itself to a firm fixed price contract and the selection of the successful bidder can be made principally on the basis of price. (ii) If sealed bids are used, the following requirements apply: (A) Bids must be solicited from an adequate number of qualified sources, providing them sufficient response time prior to the date set for opening the bids, for local, and tribal governments, the invitation for bids must be publicly advertised; (B) The invitation for bids, which will include any specifications and pertinent attachments, must define the items or services in order for the bidder to properly respond; (C) All bids will be opened at the time and place prescribed in the invitation for bids, and for local and tribal governments, the bids must be opened publicly; (D) A firm fixed price contract award will be made in writing to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Where specified in bidding documents, factors such as discounts, transportation cost, and life cycle costs must be considered in determining which bid is lowest. Payment discounts will only be used to determine the low bid when prior experience indicates that such discounts are usually taken advantage of; and (E) Any or all bids may be rejected if there is a sound documented reason. (2) Proposals. A procurement method in which either a fixed price or costreimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. They are awarded in accordance with the following requirements: (i) Requests for proposals must be publicized and identify all evaluation factors and their relative importance. Proposals must be solicited from an adequate number of qualified offerors. Any response to publicized requests for proposals must be considered to the maximum extent practical; (ii) The non-Federal entity must have a written method for conducting technical evaluations of the proposals received and making selections; (iii) Contracts must be awarded to the responsible offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the non-Federal entity, with price and other factors considered; and (iv) The non-Federal entity may use competitive proposal procedures for qualifications-based procurement of architectural/engineering (A/E) professional services whereby offeror's qualifications are evaluated and the most qualified offeror is selected, subject to negotiation of fair and reasonable compensation. The method, where price is not used as a selection factor, can only be used in procurement of A/E professional services. It cannot be used to purchase other types of services though A/E firms that are a potential source to perform the proposed effort. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause Management had not established a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Effect The failure to design and implement an effective internal control system enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls to ensure compliance and comply with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 21-22, FY 22-23 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Repeat Finding A similar comment was in the prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-001. Condition and Context A School Nutrition Cooperative (Co-ops, Education Service Center, Group Purchasing Organization, etc.) that would like to be classified as a School Food Authority (SFA) Cooperative must complete a questionnaire and submit it to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE). Once a questionnaire is received, the IDOE will review the answers to determine a Cooperative's classification. Only Cooperatives that submit the questionnaire and receive a SFA-only Cooperative classification from the IDOE in writing will be considered a SFA only Cooperative for the purposes of the procurement process and procurement reviews. Procurement When the value of goods or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold, the proper purchasing method would be the bidding process, unless the purchase meets certain other qualifications. Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for goods or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is customarily set at $250,000. However, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold of $150,000 or less for when small purchase procedures may be used. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. If it is determined a single source provider can be used for a small purchase, documentation must be retained supporting the determination. The School Corporation purchased bread, diary, produce, and commodities through Region 8 Education Service Center (Region 8). However, Region 8 had not received the SFA-only Cooperative classification from the IDOE for fiscal years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. As such, the School Corporation could not rely on the procurement procedures completed by Region 8 and were responsible for adhering to the procurement requirements for its purchases of bread, dairy, produce, and commodities. Two vendors fell within the small purchase threshold. Both vendors were selected for testing. For one of the two vendors, an adequate number of price or rate quotes were not obtained. The vendor not in compliance, was procured through Region 8; however, as noted above, since Region 8 was not an approved SFA-only Cooperative, the School Corporation could only use Region 8 as one price or rate quote and would have needed to solicit additional bids or quotes to be in compliance. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. The School Corporation purchased bread, diary, produce, and commodities through Region 8 Education Service Center (Region 8). However, Region 8 had not received the SFA-only Cooperative classification from the IDOE for 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. As such, the School Corporation could not rely on Region 8's verification of suspension and debarment and was required to complete its own verification. One covered transaction was identified and tested that equaled or exceeded $25,000. For the noted transaction, the School Corporation did not verify that the vendor was not excluded or disqualified from participation in federal award programs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . ." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use document procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases – (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non- Federal entity. . . . (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance award exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a non-competitive procurement can be used in accordance with § 200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: (1) Sealed bids. A procurement method in which bids are publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price) is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is the lowest in price. The sealed bids method is the preferred method for procuring construction, if the conditions. (i) In order for sealed bidding to be feasible, the following conditions should be present: (A) A complete, adequate, and realistic specification or purchase description is available; (B) Two or more responsible bidders are willing and able to compete effectively for the business; and (C) The procurement lends itself to a firm fixed price contract and the selection of the successful bidder can be made principally on the basis of price. (ii) If sealed bids are used, the following requirements apply: (A) Bids must be solicited from an adequate number of qualified sources, providing them sufficient response time prior to the date set for opening the bids, for local, and tribal governments, the invitation for bids must be publicly advertised; (B) The invitation for bids, which will include any specifications and pertinent attachments, must define the items or services in order for the bidder to properly respond; (C) All bids will be opened at the time and place prescribed in the invitation for bids, and for local and tribal governments, the bids must be opened publicly; (D) A firm fixed price contract award will be made in writing to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Where specified in bidding documents, factors such as discounts, transportation cost, and life cycle costs must be considered in determining which bid is lowest. Payment discounts will only be used to determine the low bid when prior experience indicates that such discounts are usually taken advantage of; and (E) Any or all bids may be rejected if there is a sound documented reason. (2) Proposals. A procurement method in which either a fixed price or costreimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. They are awarded in accordance with the following requirements: (i) Requests for proposals must be publicized and identify all evaluation factors and their relative importance. Proposals must be solicited from an adequate number of qualified offerors. Any response to publicized requests for proposals must be considered to the maximum extent practical; (ii) The non-Federal entity must have a written method for conducting technical evaluations of the proposals received and making selections; (iii) Contracts must be awarded to the responsible offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the non-Federal entity, with price and other factors considered; and (iv) The non-Federal entity may use competitive proposal procedures for qualifications-based procurement of architectural/engineering (A/E) professional services whereby offeror's qualifications are evaluated and the most qualified offeror is selected, subject to negotiation of fair and reasonable compensation. The method, where price is not used as a selection factor, can only be used in procurement of A/E professional services. It cannot be used to purchase other types of services though A/E firms that are a potential source to perform the proposed effort. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause Management had not established a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Effect The failure to design and implement an effective internal control system enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls to ensure compliance and comply with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 21-22, FY 22-23 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Repeat Finding A similar comment was in the prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-001. Condition and Context A School Nutrition Cooperative (Co-ops, Education Service Center, Group Purchasing Organization, etc.) that would like to be classified as a School Food Authority (SFA) Cooperative must complete a questionnaire and submit it to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE). Once a questionnaire is received, the IDOE will review the answers to determine a Cooperative's classification. Only Cooperatives that submit the questionnaire and receive a SFA-only Cooperative classification from the IDOE in writing will be considered a SFA only Cooperative for the purposes of the procurement process and procurement reviews. Procurement When the value of goods or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold, the proper purchasing method would be the bidding process, unless the purchase meets certain other qualifications. Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for goods or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is customarily set at $250,000. However, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold of $150,000 or less for when small purchase procedures may be used. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. If it is determined a single source provider can be used for a small purchase, documentation must be retained supporting the determination. The School Corporation purchased bread, diary, produce, and commodities through Region 8 Education Service Center (Region 8). However, Region 8 had not received the SFA-only Cooperative classification from the IDOE for fiscal years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. As such, the School Corporation could not rely on the procurement procedures completed by Region 8 and were responsible for adhering to the procurement requirements for its purchases of bread, dairy, produce, and commodities. Two vendors fell within the small purchase threshold. Both vendors were selected for testing. For one of the two vendors, an adequate number of price or rate quotes were not obtained. The vendor not in compliance, was procured through Region 8; however, as noted above, since Region 8 was not an approved SFA-only Cooperative, the School Corporation could only use Region 8 as one price or rate quote and would have needed to solicit additional bids or quotes to be in compliance. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. The School Corporation purchased bread, diary, produce, and commodities through Region 8 Education Service Center (Region 8). However, Region 8 had not received the SFA-only Cooperative classification from the IDOE for 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. As such, the School Corporation could not rely on Region 8's verification of suspension and debarment and was required to complete its own verification. One covered transaction was identified and tested that equaled or exceeded $25,000. For the noted transaction, the School Corporation did not verify that the vendor was not excluded or disqualified from participation in federal award programs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . ." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use document procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases – (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non- Federal entity. . . . (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance award exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a non-competitive procurement can be used in accordance with § 200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: (1) Sealed bids. A procurement method in which bids are publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price) is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is the lowest in price. The sealed bids method is the preferred method for procuring construction, if the conditions. (i) In order for sealed bidding to be feasible, the following conditions should be present: (A) A complete, adequate, and realistic specification or purchase description is available; (B) Two or more responsible bidders are willing and able to compete effectively for the business; and (C) The procurement lends itself to a firm fixed price contract and the selection of the successful bidder can be made principally on the basis of price. (ii) If sealed bids are used, the following requirements apply: (A) Bids must be solicited from an adequate number of qualified sources, providing them sufficient response time prior to the date set for opening the bids, for local, and tribal governments, the invitation for bids must be publicly advertised; (B) The invitation for bids, which will include any specifications and pertinent attachments, must define the items or services in order for the bidder to properly respond; (C) All bids will be opened at the time and place prescribed in the invitation for bids, and for local and tribal governments, the bids must be opened publicly; (D) A firm fixed price contract award will be made in writing to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Where specified in bidding documents, factors such as discounts, transportation cost, and life cycle costs must be considered in determining which bid is lowest. Payment discounts will only be used to determine the low bid when prior experience indicates that such discounts are usually taken advantage of; and (E) Any or all bids may be rejected if there is a sound documented reason. (2) Proposals. A procurement method in which either a fixed price or costreimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. They are awarded in accordance with the following requirements: (i) Requests for proposals must be publicized and identify all evaluation factors and their relative importance. Proposals must be solicited from an adequate number of qualified offerors. Any response to publicized requests for proposals must be considered to the maximum extent practical; (ii) The non-Federal entity must have a written method for conducting technical evaluations of the proposals received and making selections; (iii) Contracts must be awarded to the responsible offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the non-Federal entity, with price and other factors considered; and (iv) The non-Federal entity may use competitive proposal procedures for qualifications-based procurement of architectural/engineering (A/E) professional services whereby offeror's qualifications are evaluated and the most qualified offeror is selected, subject to negotiation of fair and reasonable compensation. The method, where price is not used as a selection factor, can only be used in procurement of A/E professional services. It cannot be used to purchase other types of services though A/E firms that are a potential source to perform the proposed effort. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause Management had not established a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Effect The failure to design and implement an effective internal control system enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls to ensure compliance and comply with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 21-22, FY 22-23 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Repeat Finding A similar comment was in the prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-001. Condition and Context A School Nutrition Cooperative (Co-ops, Education Service Center, Group Purchasing Organization, etc.) that would like to be classified as a School Food Authority (SFA) Cooperative must complete a questionnaire and submit it to the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE). Once a questionnaire is received, the IDOE will review the answers to determine a Cooperative's classification. Only Cooperatives that submit the questionnaire and receive a SFA-only Cooperative classification from the IDOE in writing will be considered a SFA only Cooperative for the purposes of the procurement process and procurement reviews. Procurement When the value of goods or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold, the proper purchasing method would be the bidding process, unless the purchase meets certain other qualifications. Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for goods or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is customarily set at $250,000. However, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold of $150,000 or less for when small purchase procedures may be used. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. If it is determined a single source provider can be used for a small purchase, documentation must be retained supporting the determination. The School Corporation purchased bread, diary, produce, and commodities through Region 8 Education Service Center (Region 8). However, Region 8 had not received the SFA-only Cooperative classification from the IDOE for fiscal years 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. As such, the School Corporation could not rely on the procurement procedures completed by Region 8 and were responsible for adhering to the procurement requirements for its purchases of bread, dairy, produce, and commodities. Two vendors fell within the small purchase threshold. Both vendors were selected for testing. For one of the two vendors, an adequate number of price or rate quotes were not obtained. The vendor not in compliance, was procured through Region 8; however, as noted above, since Region 8 was not an approved SFA-only Cooperative, the School Corporation could only use Region 8 as one price or rate quote and would have needed to solicit additional bids or quotes to be in compliance. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. The School Corporation purchased bread, diary, produce, and commodities through Region 8 Education Service Center (Region 8). However, Region 8 had not received the SFA-only Cooperative classification from the IDOE for 2021-2022 and 2022-2023. As such, the School Corporation could not rely on Region 8's verification of suspension and debarment and was required to complete its own verification. One covered transaction was identified and tested that equaled or exceeded $25,000. For the noted transaction, the School Corporation did not verify that the vendor was not excluded or disqualified from participation in federal award programs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . ." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use document procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases – (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non- Federal entity. . . . (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance award exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a non-competitive procurement can be used in accordance with § 200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: (1) Sealed bids. A procurement method in which bids are publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price) is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is the lowest in price. The sealed bids method is the preferred method for procuring construction, if the conditions. (i) In order for sealed bidding to be feasible, the following conditions should be present: (A) A complete, adequate, and realistic specification or purchase description is available; (B) Two or more responsible bidders are willing and able to compete effectively for the business; and (C) The procurement lends itself to a firm fixed price contract and the selection of the successful bidder can be made principally on the basis of price. (ii) If sealed bids are used, the following requirements apply: (A) Bids must be solicited from an adequate number of qualified sources, providing them sufficient response time prior to the date set for opening the bids, for local, and tribal governments, the invitation for bids must be publicly advertised; (B) The invitation for bids, which will include any specifications and pertinent attachments, must define the items or services in order for the bidder to properly respond; (C) All bids will be opened at the time and place prescribed in the invitation for bids, and for local and tribal governments, the bids must be opened publicly; (D) A firm fixed price contract award will be made in writing to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Where specified in bidding documents, factors such as discounts, transportation cost, and life cycle costs must be considered in determining which bid is lowest. Payment discounts will only be used to determine the low bid when prior experience indicates that such discounts are usually taken advantage of; and (E) Any or all bids may be rejected if there is a sound documented reason. (2) Proposals. A procurement method in which either a fixed price or costreimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. They are awarded in accordance with the following requirements: (i) Requests for proposals must be publicized and identify all evaluation factors and their relative importance. Proposals must be solicited from an adequate number of qualified offerors. Any response to publicized requests for proposals must be considered to the maximum extent practical; (ii) The non-Federal entity must have a written method for conducting technical evaluations of the proposals received and making selections; (iii) Contracts must be awarded to the responsible offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the non-Federal entity, with price and other factors considered; and (iv) The non-Federal entity may use competitive proposal procedures for qualifications-based procurement of architectural/engineering (A/E) professional services whereby offeror's qualifications are evaluated and the most qualified offeror is selected, subject to negotiation of fair and reasonable compensation. The method, where price is not used as a selection factor, can only be used in procurement of A/E professional services. It cannot be used to purchase other types of services though A/E firms that are a potential source to perform the proposed effort. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause Management had not established a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Effect The failure to design and implement an effective internal control system enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls to ensure compliance and comply with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-006 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers: 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, 22611-022-PN01, 22611-022-ARP, 23611-022-PN01, 20619-022-PN01, 21619-022-PN01, 22619-022-PN01, 22619-022- ARP, 23619-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Qualified Opinion Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . .” 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. • Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the procurement and suspension an debarment requirements. The Cooperative had not designed or implemented adequate policies or procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures for micro or small purchases were followed. There was no oversight, review, or approval process in place and documented at the Cooperative to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained, if required, or documentation to support limited procurement procedures. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to and vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene-Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2022, three vendors, totaling $88,772, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the three vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All three vendors were tested. For all three, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. For fiscal year 2023, six vendors, totaling $264,106, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the six vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All six vendors were tested. For five of the six, totaling $252,906, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the Cooperative disclosed they relied on a clause to be included in the vendor contracts to ensure compliance. Two covered transactions that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were identified. Both transactions, totaling $192,218, were selected for testing. One of the two transactions, totaling $44,883, included the appropriate clause. For the other vendor, the Cooperative did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance regarding suspension and debarment were isolated to fiscal year 2023. Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-006 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers: 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, 22611-022-PN01, 22611-022-ARP, 23611-022-PN01, 20619-022-PN01, 21619-022-PN01, 22619-022-PN01, 22619-022- ARP, 23619-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Qualified Opinion Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . .” 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. • Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the procurement and suspension an debarment requirements. The Cooperative had not designed or implemented adequate policies or procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures for micro or small purchases were followed. There was no oversight, review, or approval process in place and documented at the Cooperative to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained, if required, or documentation to support limited procurement procedures. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to and vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene-Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2022, three vendors, totaling $88,772, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the three vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All three vendors were tested. For all three, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. For fiscal year 2023, six vendors, totaling $264,106, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the six vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All six vendors were tested. For five of the six, totaling $252,906, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the Cooperative disclosed they relied on a clause to be included in the vendor contracts to ensure compliance. Two covered transactions that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were identified. Both transactions, totaling $192,218, were selected for testing. One of the two transactions, totaling $44,883, included the appropriate clause. For the other vendor, the Cooperative did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance regarding suspension and debarment were isolated to fiscal year 2023. Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-006 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers: 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, 22611-022-PN01, 22611-022-ARP, 23611-022-PN01, 20619-022-PN01, 21619-022-PN01, 22619-022-PN01, 22619-022- ARP, 23619-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Qualified Opinion Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . .” 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. • Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the procurement and suspension an debarment requirements. The Cooperative had not designed or implemented adequate policies or procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures for micro or small purchases were followed. There was no oversight, review, or approval process in place and documented at the Cooperative to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained, if required, or documentation to support limited procurement procedures. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to and vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene-Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2022, three vendors, totaling $88,772, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the three vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All three vendors were tested. For all three, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. For fiscal year 2023, six vendors, totaling $264,106, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the six vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All six vendors were tested. For five of the six, totaling $252,906, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the Cooperative disclosed they relied on a clause to be included in the vendor contracts to ensure compliance. Two covered transactions that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were identified. Both transactions, totaling $192,218, were selected for testing. One of the two transactions, totaling $44,883, included the appropriate clause. For the other vendor, the Cooperative did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance regarding suspension and debarment were isolated to fiscal year 2023. Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-006 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers: 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, 22611-022-PN01, 22611-022-ARP, 23611-022-PN01, 20619-022-PN01, 21619-022-PN01, 22619-022-PN01, 22619-022- ARP, 23619-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Qualified Opinion Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . .” 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. • Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the procurement and suspension an debarment requirements. The Cooperative had not designed or implemented adequate policies or procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures for micro or small purchases were followed. There was no oversight, review, or approval process in place and documented at the Cooperative to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained, if required, or documentation to support limited procurement procedures. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to and vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene-Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2022, three vendors, totaling $88,772, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the three vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All three vendors were tested. For all three, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. For fiscal year 2023, six vendors, totaling $264,106, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the six vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All six vendors were tested. For five of the six, totaling $252,906, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the Cooperative disclosed they relied on a clause to be included in the vendor contracts to ensure compliance. Two covered transactions that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were identified. Both transactions, totaling $192,218, were selected for testing. One of the two transactions, totaling $44,883, included the appropriate clause. For the other vendor, the Cooperative did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance regarding suspension and debarment were isolated to fiscal year 2023. Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-006 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers: 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, 22611-022-PN01, 22611-022-ARP, 23611-022-PN01, 20619-022-PN01, 21619-022-PN01, 22619-022-PN01, 22619-022- ARP, 23619-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Qualified Opinion Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . .” 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. • Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the procurement and suspension an debarment requirements. The Cooperative had not designed or implemented adequate policies or procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures for micro or small purchases were followed. There was no oversight, review, or approval process in place and documented at the Cooperative to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained, if required, or documentation to support limited procurement procedures. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to and vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene-Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2022, three vendors, totaling $88,772, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the three vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All three vendors were tested. For all three, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. For fiscal year 2023, six vendors, totaling $264,106, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the six vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All six vendors were tested. For five of the six, totaling $252,906, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the Cooperative disclosed they relied on a clause to be included in the vendor contracts to ensure compliance. Two covered transactions that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were identified. Both transactions, totaling $192,218, were selected for testing. One of the two transactions, totaling $44,883, included the appropriate clause. For the other vendor, the Cooperative did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance regarding suspension and debarment were isolated to fiscal year 2023. Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-006 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers: 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, 22611-022-PN01, 22611-022-ARP, 23611-022-PN01, 20619-022-PN01, 21619-022-PN01, 22619-022-PN01, 22619-022- ARP, 23619-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Qualified Opinion Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . .” 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. • Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the procurement and suspension an debarment requirements. The Cooperative had not designed or implemented adequate policies or procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures for micro or small purchases were followed. There was no oversight, review, or approval process in place and documented at the Cooperative to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained, if required, or documentation to support limited procurement procedures. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to and vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene-Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2022, three vendors, totaling $88,772, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the three vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All three vendors were tested. For all three, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. For fiscal year 2023, six vendors, totaling $264,106, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the six vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All six vendors were tested. For five of the six, totaling $252,906, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the Cooperative disclosed they relied on a clause to be included in the vendor contracts to ensure compliance. Two covered transactions that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were identified. Both transactions, totaling $192,218, were selected for testing. One of the two transactions, totaling $44,883, included the appropriate clause. For the other vendor, the Cooperative did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance regarding suspension and debarment were isolated to fiscal year 2023. Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-006 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers: 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, 22611-022-PN01, 22611-022-ARP, 23611-022-PN01, 20619-022-PN01, 21619-022-PN01, 22619-022-PN01, 22619-022- ARP, 23619-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Qualified Opinion Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . .” 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. • Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the procurement and suspension an debarment requirements. The Cooperative had not designed or implemented adequate policies or procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures for micro or small purchases were followed. There was no oversight, review, or approval process in place and documented at the Cooperative to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained, if required, or documentation to support limited procurement procedures. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to and vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene-Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2022, three vendors, totaling $88,772, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the three vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All three vendors were tested. For all three, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. For fiscal year 2023, six vendors, totaling $264,106, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the six vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All six vendors were tested. For five of the six, totaling $252,906, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the Cooperative disclosed they relied on a clause to be included in the vendor contracts to ensure compliance. Two covered transactions that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were identified. Both transactions, totaling $192,218, were selected for testing. One of the two transactions, totaling $44,883, included the appropriate clause. For the other vendor, the Cooperative did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance regarding suspension and debarment were isolated to fiscal year 2023. Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-006 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers: 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, 22611-022-PN01, 22611-022-ARP, 23611-022-PN01, 20619-022-PN01, 21619-022-PN01, 22619-022-PN01, 22619-022- ARP, 23619-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Qualified Opinion Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . .” 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. • Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the procurement and suspension an debarment requirements. The Cooperative had not designed or implemented adequate policies or procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures for micro or small purchases were followed. There was no oversight, review, or approval process in place and documented at the Cooperative to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained, if required, or documentation to support limited procurement procedures. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to and vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene-Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2022, three vendors, totaling $88,772, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the three vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All three vendors were tested. For all three, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. For fiscal year 2023, six vendors, totaling $264,106, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the six vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All six vendors were tested. For five of the six, totaling $252,906, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the Cooperative disclosed they relied on a clause to be included in the vendor contracts to ensure compliance. Two covered transactions that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were identified. Both transactions, totaling $192,218, were selected for testing. One of the two transactions, totaling $44,883, included the appropriate clause. For the other vendor, the Cooperative did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance regarding suspension and debarment were isolated to fiscal year 2023. Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-006 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers: 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, 22611-022-PN01, 22611-022-ARP, 23611-022-PN01, 20619-022-PN01, 21619-022-PN01, 22619-022-PN01, 22619-022- ARP, 23619-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Qualified Opinion Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . .” 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. • Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the procurement and suspension an debarment requirements. The Cooperative had not designed or implemented adequate policies or procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures for micro or small purchases were followed. There was no oversight, review, or approval process in place and documented at the Cooperative to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained, if required, or documentation to support limited procurement procedures. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to and vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene-Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2022, three vendors, totaling $88,772, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the three vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All three vendors were tested. For all three, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. For fiscal year 2023, six vendors, totaling $264,106, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the six vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All six vendors were tested. For five of the six, totaling $252,906, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the Cooperative disclosed they relied on a clause to be included in the vendor contracts to ensure compliance. Two covered transactions that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were identified. Both transactions, totaling $192,218, were selected for testing. One of the two transactions, totaling $44,883, included the appropriate clause. For the other vendor, the Cooperative did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance regarding suspension and debarment were isolated to fiscal year 2023. Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-006 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers: 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, 22611-022-PN01, 22611-022-ARP, 23611-022-PN01, 20619-022-PN01, 21619-022-PN01, 22619-022-PN01, 22619-022- ARP, 23619-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Qualified Opinion Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . .” 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. • Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the procurement and suspension an debarment requirements. The Cooperative had not designed or implemented adequate policies or procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures for micro or small purchases were followed. There was no oversight, review, or approval process in place and documented at the Cooperative to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained, if required, or documentation to support limited procurement procedures. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to and vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene-Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2022, three vendors, totaling $88,772, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the three vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All three vendors were tested. For all three, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. For fiscal year 2023, six vendors, totaling $264,106, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the six vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All six vendors were tested. For five of the six, totaling $252,906, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the Cooperative disclosed they relied on a clause to be included in the vendor contracts to ensure compliance. Two covered transactions that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were identified. Both transactions, totaling $192,218, were selected for testing. One of the two transactions, totaling $44,883, included the appropriate clause. For the other vendor, the Cooperative did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance regarding suspension and debarment were isolated to fiscal year 2023. Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-006 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers: 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, 22611-022-PN01, 22611-022-ARP, 23611-022-PN01, 20619-022-PN01, 21619-022-PN01, 22619-022-PN01, 22619-022- ARP, 23619-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Qualified Opinion Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . .” 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. • Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the procurement and suspension an debarment requirements. The Cooperative had not designed or implemented adequate policies or procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures for micro or small purchases were followed. There was no oversight, review, or approval process in place and documented at the Cooperative to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained, if required, or documentation to support limited procurement procedures. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to and vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene-Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2022, three vendors, totaling $88,772, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the three vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All three vendors were tested. For all three, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. For fiscal year 2023, six vendors, totaling $264,106, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the six vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All six vendors were tested. For five of the six, totaling $252,906, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the Cooperative disclosed they relied on a clause to be included in the vendor contracts to ensure compliance. Two covered transactions that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were identified. Both transactions, totaling $192,218, were selected for testing. One of the two transactions, totaling $44,883, included the appropriate clause. For the other vendor, the Cooperative did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance regarding suspension and debarment were isolated to fiscal year 2023. Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
2023-015. Obligation of CRF Funds Not Completed Within Proper Timeframe Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency and Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.019 Coronavirus Relief Fund Federal Award Number: N/A Questioned Costs: $0 Pass-through Entity: N/A Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A On August 3, 2022, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB) obligated approximately $48 million of Coronavirus Relief Funds (CRF), seven months past the final obligation date of December 31, 2021. GOPB subsequently expended the funds on December 30, 2022, three months after the final obligation liquidation date of September 30, 2022 due to delays in FEMA reimbursements received after this date.¬¬ The US Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury) program guidance indicates payments from CRF “may only be used to cover costs that were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020, and ends on December 31, 2021.” The Treasury further revised its definition of “incurred” as of December 14, 2021, to align with Uniform Guidance’s definition of obligation (2 CFR 200.1). This means an order should be placed for property and services or entering into contracts, subawards, and similar transactions that require payment by December 31, 2021 to properly obligate CRF funds. In addition, the Treasury’s revised guidance clarified that recipients “are required to expend their funds received from the CRF to cover these obligations by September 30, 2022.” Regarding FEMA reimbursements, the Prime Recipient Quarterly Grant Solutions Closeout Procedure Guide, which was issued by the Treasury Office of Inspector General (OIG) on February 14, 2022, states that “a prime recipient should refer to Treasury’s guidance when applying CRF proceeds, which are freed up as a result of FEMA’s 100 percent Federal cost share coverage, to other eligible uses under the CARES Act.” Facing the deadlines to close out CRF or lose funding, GOPB used the funds without appropriately adhering to the obligation and liquidation dates provided in the written guidance issued by the Treasury, including after-the-fact FEMA reimbursements. Failure to follow Treasury’s written period of performance guidance for timely obligation and liquidation of funds may jeopardize the use of funding and require repayment by the State. We considered GOPB’s use of the $48 million to ultimately be for eligible purposes under CRF’s allowable activities. As such, we did not question these costs. Recommendation: We recommend GOPB follow the Treasury’s written period of performance guidance with regard to obligation and liquidation of funds as it closes out the CRF program. GOPB’s Response: GOPB agrees with the basis for this finding. GOPB followed an alternative interpretation of the Treasury's CRF guidance regarding the use of CRF proceeds for costs incurred in response to correspondence with the U.S. Treasury. It was believed actions taken were reasonable based on that correspondence and Treasury’s Closeout Procedures Guide. After the enactment of the CARES Act, the Treasury Department updated guidance on costs incurred multiple times, including with the CRF Guidance Revision Regarding Cost Incurred on December 14, 2021. Based on a review of Treasury guidance and an email exchange between GOPB and the Treasury Office of Inspector General in September 2022, GOPB updated quarterly CRF reports to reallocate CRF proceeds freed up as a result of FEMA reimbursements to other eligible costs incurred prior to December 31, 2021. Those reallocated costs were incurred prior to December 31, 2021 and were eligible CRF obligations and expenditures, even if the state didn’t ultimately determine it would use CRF proceeds to cover those costs until the December 2022 reporting period.
2023-015. Obligation of CRF Funds Not Completed Within Proper Timeframe Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency and Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.019 Coronavirus Relief Fund Federal Award Number: N/A Questioned Costs: $0 Pass-through Entity: N/A Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A On August 3, 2022, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB) obligated approximately $48 million of Coronavirus Relief Funds (CRF), seven months past the final obligation date of December 31, 2021. GOPB subsequently expended the funds on December 30, 2022, three months after the final obligation liquidation date of September 30, 2022 due to delays in FEMA reimbursements received after this date.¬¬ The US Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury) program guidance indicates payments from CRF “may only be used to cover costs that were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020, and ends on December 31, 2021.” The Treasury further revised its definition of “incurred” as of December 14, 2021, to align with Uniform Guidance’s definition of obligation (2 CFR 200.1). This means an order should be placed for property and services or entering into contracts, subawards, and similar transactions that require payment by December 31, 2021 to properly obligate CRF funds. In addition, the Treasury’s revised guidance clarified that recipients “are required to expend their funds received from the CRF to cover these obligations by September 30, 2022.” Regarding FEMA reimbursements, the Prime Recipient Quarterly Grant Solutions Closeout Procedure Guide, which was issued by the Treasury Office of Inspector General (OIG) on February 14, 2022, states that “a prime recipient should refer to Treasury’s guidance when applying CRF proceeds, which are freed up as a result of FEMA’s 100 percent Federal cost share coverage, to other eligible uses under the CARES Act.” Facing the deadlines to close out CRF or lose funding, GOPB used the funds without appropriately adhering to the obligation and liquidation dates provided in the written guidance issued by the Treasury, including after-the-fact FEMA reimbursements. Failure to follow Treasury’s written period of performance guidance for timely obligation and liquidation of funds may jeopardize the use of funding and require repayment by the State. We considered GOPB’s use of the $48 million to ultimately be for eligible purposes under CRF’s allowable activities. As such, we did not question these costs. Recommendation: We recommend GOPB follow the Treasury’s written period of performance guidance with regard to obligation and liquidation of funds as it closes out the CRF program. GOPB’s Response: GOPB agrees with the basis for this finding. GOPB followed an alternative interpretation of the Treasury's CRF guidance regarding the use of CRF proceeds for costs incurred in response to correspondence with the U.S. Treasury. It was believed actions taken were reasonable based on that correspondence and Treasury’s Closeout Procedures Guide. After the enactment of the CARES Act, the Treasury Department updated guidance on costs incurred multiple times, including with the CRF Guidance Revision Regarding Cost Incurred on December 14, 2021. Based on a review of Treasury guidance and an email exchange between GOPB and the Treasury Office of Inspector General in September 2022, GOPB updated quarterly CRF reports to reallocate CRF proceeds freed up as a result of FEMA reimbursements to other eligible costs incurred prior to December 31, 2021. Those reallocated costs were incurred prior to December 31, 2021 and were eligible CRF obligations and expenditures, even if the state didn’t ultimately determine it would use CRF proceeds to cover those costs until the December 2022 reporting period.
2023-015. Obligation of CRF Funds Not Completed Within Proper Timeframe Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency and Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.019 Coronavirus Relief Fund Federal Award Number: N/A Questioned Costs: $0 Pass-through Entity: N/A Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A On August 3, 2022, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB) obligated approximately $48 million of Coronavirus Relief Funds (CRF), seven months past the final obligation date of December 31, 2021. GOPB subsequently expended the funds on December 30, 2022, three months after the final obligation liquidation date of September 30, 2022 due to delays in FEMA reimbursements received after this date.¬¬ The US Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury) program guidance indicates payments from CRF “may only be used to cover costs that were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020, and ends on December 31, 2021.” The Treasury further revised its definition of “incurred” as of December 14, 2021, to align with Uniform Guidance’s definition of obligation (2 CFR 200.1). This means an order should be placed for property and services or entering into contracts, subawards, and similar transactions that require payment by December 31, 2021 to properly obligate CRF funds. In addition, the Treasury’s revised guidance clarified that recipients “are required to expend their funds received from the CRF to cover these obligations by September 30, 2022.” Regarding FEMA reimbursements, the Prime Recipient Quarterly Grant Solutions Closeout Procedure Guide, which was issued by the Treasury Office of Inspector General (OIG) on February 14, 2022, states that “a prime recipient should refer to Treasury’s guidance when applying CRF proceeds, which are freed up as a result of FEMA’s 100 percent Federal cost share coverage, to other eligible uses under the CARES Act.” Facing the deadlines to close out CRF or lose funding, GOPB used the funds without appropriately adhering to the obligation and liquidation dates provided in the written guidance issued by the Treasury, including after-the-fact FEMA reimbursements. Failure to follow Treasury’s written period of performance guidance for timely obligation and liquidation of funds may jeopardize the use of funding and require repayment by the State. We considered GOPB’s use of the $48 million to ultimately be for eligible purposes under CRF’s allowable activities. As such, we did not question these costs. Recommendation: We recommend GOPB follow the Treasury’s written period of performance guidance with regard to obligation and liquidation of funds as it closes out the CRF program. GOPB’s Response: GOPB agrees with the basis for this finding. GOPB followed an alternative interpretation of the Treasury's CRF guidance regarding the use of CRF proceeds for costs incurred in response to correspondence with the U.S. Treasury. It was believed actions taken were reasonable based on that correspondence and Treasury’s Closeout Procedures Guide. After the enactment of the CARES Act, the Treasury Department updated guidance on costs incurred multiple times, including with the CRF Guidance Revision Regarding Cost Incurred on December 14, 2021. Based on a review of Treasury guidance and an email exchange between GOPB and the Treasury Office of Inspector General in September 2022, GOPB updated quarterly CRF reports to reallocate CRF proceeds freed up as a result of FEMA reimbursements to other eligible costs incurred prior to December 31, 2021. Those reallocated costs were incurred prior to December 31, 2021 and were eligible CRF obligations and expenditures, even if the state didn’t ultimately determine it would use CRF proceeds to cover those costs until the December 2022 reporting period.
2023-015. Obligation of CRF Funds Not Completed Within Proper Timeframe Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency and Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.019 Coronavirus Relief Fund Federal Award Number: N/A Questioned Costs: $0 Pass-through Entity: N/A Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A On August 3, 2022, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB) obligated approximately $48 million of Coronavirus Relief Funds (CRF), seven months past the final obligation date of December 31, 2021. GOPB subsequently expended the funds on December 30, 2022, three months after the final obligation liquidation date of September 30, 2022 due to delays in FEMA reimbursements received after this date.¬¬ The US Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury) program guidance indicates payments from CRF “may only be used to cover costs that were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020, and ends on December 31, 2021.” The Treasury further revised its definition of “incurred” as of December 14, 2021, to align with Uniform Guidance’s definition of obligation (2 CFR 200.1). This means an order should be placed for property and services or entering into contracts, subawards, and similar transactions that require payment by December 31, 2021 to properly obligate CRF funds. In addition, the Treasury’s revised guidance clarified that recipients “are required to expend their funds received from the CRF to cover these obligations by September 30, 2022.” Regarding FEMA reimbursements, the Prime Recipient Quarterly Grant Solutions Closeout Procedure Guide, which was issued by the Treasury Office of Inspector General (OIG) on February 14, 2022, states that “a prime recipient should refer to Treasury’s guidance when applying CRF proceeds, which are freed up as a result of FEMA’s 100 percent Federal cost share coverage, to other eligible uses under the CARES Act.” Facing the deadlines to close out CRF or lose funding, GOPB used the funds without appropriately adhering to the obligation and liquidation dates provided in the written guidance issued by the Treasury, including after-the-fact FEMA reimbursements. Failure to follow Treasury’s written period of performance guidance for timely obligation and liquidation of funds may jeopardize the use of funding and require repayment by the State. We considered GOPB’s use of the $48 million to ultimately be for eligible purposes under CRF’s allowable activities. As such, we did not question these costs. Recommendation: We recommend GOPB follow the Treasury’s written period of performance guidance with regard to obligation and liquidation of funds as it closes out the CRF program. GOPB’s Response: GOPB agrees with the basis for this finding. GOPB followed an alternative interpretation of the Treasury's CRF guidance regarding the use of CRF proceeds for costs incurred in response to correspondence with the U.S. Treasury. It was believed actions taken were reasonable based on that correspondence and Treasury’s Closeout Procedures Guide. After the enactment of the CARES Act, the Treasury Department updated guidance on costs incurred multiple times, including with the CRF Guidance Revision Regarding Cost Incurred on December 14, 2021. Based on a review of Treasury guidance and an email exchange between GOPB and the Treasury Office of Inspector General in September 2022, GOPB updated quarterly CRF reports to reallocate CRF proceeds freed up as a result of FEMA reimbursements to other eligible costs incurred prior to December 31, 2021. Those reallocated costs were incurred prior to December 31, 2021 and were eligible CRF obligations and expenditures, even if the state didn’t ultimately determine it would use CRF proceeds to cover those costs until the December 2022 reporting period.
2023-015. Obligation of CRF Funds Not Completed Within Proper Timeframe Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (Finding Type: Significant Deficiency and Reportable Noncompliance) Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.019 Coronavirus Relief Fund Federal Award Number: N/A Questioned Costs: $0 Pass-through Entity: N/A Prior Year Single Audit Report Finding Number: N/A On August 3, 2022, the Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget (GOPB) obligated approximately $48 million of Coronavirus Relief Funds (CRF), seven months past the final obligation date of December 31, 2021. GOPB subsequently expended the funds on December 30, 2022, three months after the final obligation liquidation date of September 30, 2022 due to delays in FEMA reimbursements received after this date.¬¬ The US Department of the Treasury’s (Treasury) program guidance indicates payments from CRF “may only be used to cover costs that were incurred during the period that begins on March 1, 2020, and ends on December 31, 2021.” The Treasury further revised its definition of “incurred” as of December 14, 2021, to align with Uniform Guidance’s definition of obligation (2 CFR 200.1). This means an order should be placed for property and services or entering into contracts, subawards, and similar transactions that require payment by December 31, 2021 to properly obligate CRF funds. In addition, the Treasury’s revised guidance clarified that recipients “are required to expend their funds received from the CRF to cover these obligations by September 30, 2022.” Regarding FEMA reimbursements, the Prime Recipient Quarterly Grant Solutions Closeout Procedure Guide, which was issued by the Treasury Office of Inspector General (OIG) on February 14, 2022, states that “a prime recipient should refer to Treasury’s guidance when applying CRF proceeds, which are freed up as a result of FEMA’s 100 percent Federal cost share coverage, to other eligible uses under the CARES Act.” Facing the deadlines to close out CRF or lose funding, GOPB used the funds without appropriately adhering to the obligation and liquidation dates provided in the written guidance issued by the Treasury, including after-the-fact FEMA reimbursements. Failure to follow Treasury’s written period of performance guidance for timely obligation and liquidation of funds may jeopardize the use of funding and require repayment by the State. We considered GOPB’s use of the $48 million to ultimately be for eligible purposes under CRF’s allowable activities. As such, we did not question these costs. Recommendation: We recommend GOPB follow the Treasury’s written period of performance guidance with regard to obligation and liquidation of funds as it closes out the CRF program. GOPB’s Response: GOPB agrees with the basis for this finding. GOPB followed an alternative interpretation of the Treasury's CRF guidance regarding the use of CRF proceeds for costs incurred in response to correspondence with the U.S. Treasury. It was believed actions taken were reasonable based on that correspondence and Treasury’s Closeout Procedures Guide. After the enactment of the CARES Act, the Treasury Department updated guidance on costs incurred multiple times, including with the CRF Guidance Revision Regarding Cost Incurred on December 14, 2021. Based on a review of Treasury guidance and an email exchange between GOPB and the Treasury Office of Inspector General in September 2022, GOPB updated quarterly CRF reports to reallocate CRF proceeds freed up as a result of FEMA reimbursements to other eligible costs incurred prior to December 31, 2021. Those reallocated costs were incurred prior to December 31, 2021 and were eligible CRF obligations and expenditures, even if the state didn’t ultimately determine it would use CRF proceeds to cover those costs until the December 2022 reporting period.
FINDING 2023-004 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, 22611-022-PN01, 22611-022-ARP, 23611-022-PN01, 20619-022-PN01, 21619-022- PN01, 22619-022-PN01, 22619-022-ARP, 23619-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Qualified Opinion Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . .” FINDING 2023-004 (Continued) 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the procurement and suspension an debarment requirements. The Cooperative had not designed or implemented adequate policies or procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures for micro or small purchases were followed. There was no oversight, review, or approval process in place and documented at the Cooperative to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained, if required, or documentation to support limited procurement procedures. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. FINDING 2023-004 (Continued) Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to and vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene-Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2022, three vendors, totaling $88,772, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the three vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All three vendors were tested. For all three, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. For fiscal year 2023, six vendors, totaling $264,106, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the six vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All six vendors were tested. For five of the six, totaling $252,906, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. FINDING 2023-004 (Continued) Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the Cooperative disclosed they relied on a clause to be included in the vendor contracts to ensure compliance. Two covered transactions that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were identified. Both transactions, totaling $192,218, were selected for testing. One of the two transactions, totaling $44,883, included the appropriate clause. For the other vendor, the Cooperative did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance regarding suspension and debarment were isolated to fiscal year 2023. Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-004 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, 22611-022-PN01, 22611-022-ARP, 23611-022-PN01, 20619-022-PN01, 21619-022- PN01, 22619-022-PN01, 22619-022-ARP, 23619-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Qualified Opinion Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . .” FINDING 2023-004 (Continued) 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the procurement and suspension an debarment requirements. The Cooperative had not designed or implemented adequate policies or procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures for micro or small purchases were followed. There was no oversight, review, or approval process in place and documented at the Cooperative to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained, if required, or documentation to support limited procurement procedures. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. FINDING 2023-004 (Continued) Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to and vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene-Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2022, three vendors, totaling $88,772, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the three vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All three vendors were tested. For all three, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. For fiscal year 2023, six vendors, totaling $264,106, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the six vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All six vendors were tested. For five of the six, totaling $252,906, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. FINDING 2023-004 (Continued) Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the Cooperative disclosed they relied on a clause to be included in the vendor contracts to ensure compliance. Two covered transactions that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were identified. Both transactions, totaling $192,218, were selected for testing. One of the two transactions, totaling $44,883, included the appropriate clause. For the other vendor, the Cooperative did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance regarding suspension and debarment were isolated to fiscal year 2023. Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-004 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, 22611-022-PN01, 22611-022-ARP, 23611-022-PN01, 20619-022-PN01, 21619-022- PN01, 22619-022-PN01, 22619-022-ARP, 23619-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Qualified Opinion Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . .” FINDING 2023-004 (Continued) 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the procurement and suspension an debarment requirements. The Cooperative had not designed or implemented adequate policies or procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures for micro or small purchases were followed. There was no oversight, review, or approval process in place and documented at the Cooperative to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained, if required, or documentation to support limited procurement procedures. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. FINDING 2023-004 (Continued) Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to and vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene-Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2022, three vendors, totaling $88,772, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the three vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All three vendors were tested. For all three, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. For fiscal year 2023, six vendors, totaling $264,106, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the six vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All six vendors were tested. For five of the six, totaling $252,906, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. FINDING 2023-004 (Continued) Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the Cooperative disclosed they relied on a clause to be included in the vendor contracts to ensure compliance. Two covered transactions that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were identified. Both transactions, totaling $192,218, were selected for testing. One of the two transactions, totaling $44,883, included the appropriate clause. For the other vendor, the Cooperative did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance regarding suspension and debarment were isolated to fiscal year 2023. Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-004 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, 22611-022-PN01, 22611-022-ARP, 23611-022-PN01, 20619-022-PN01, 21619-022- PN01, 22619-022-PN01, 22619-022-ARP, 23619-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Qualified Opinion Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . .” FINDING 2023-004 (Continued) 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the procurement and suspension an debarment requirements. The Cooperative had not designed or implemented adequate policies or procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures for micro or small purchases were followed. There was no oversight, review, or approval process in place and documented at the Cooperative to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained, if required, or documentation to support limited procurement procedures. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. FINDING 2023-004 (Continued) Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to and vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene-Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2022, three vendors, totaling $88,772, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the three vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All three vendors were tested. For all three, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. For fiscal year 2023, six vendors, totaling $264,106, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the six vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All six vendors were tested. For five of the six, totaling $252,906, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. FINDING 2023-004 (Continued) Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the Cooperative disclosed they relied on a clause to be included in the vendor contracts to ensure compliance. Two covered transactions that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were identified. Both transactions, totaling $192,218, were selected for testing. One of the two transactions, totaling $44,883, included the appropriate clause. For the other vendor, the Cooperative did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance regarding suspension and debarment were isolated to fiscal year 2023. Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2023-004 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 19611-022-PN01, 20611-022-PN01, 21611-022-PN01, 22611-022-PN01, 22611-022-ARP, 23611-022-PN01, 20619-022-PN01, 21619-022- PN01, 22619-022-PN01, 22619-022-ARP, 23619-022-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Qualified Opinion Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records 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. . . .” FINDING 2023-004 (Continued) 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the procurement and suspension an debarment requirements. The Cooperative had not designed or implemented adequate policies or procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures for micro or small purchases were followed. There was no oversight, review, or approval process in place and documented at the Cooperative to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained, if required, or documentation to support limited procurement procedures. Cause: A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. FINDING 2023-004 (Continued) Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to and vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Greene-Sullivan Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2021-2022 and 2022-2023, the Cooperative operated the special education programs and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreements were between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. However, there was inadequate oversight performed by the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2022, three vendors, totaling $88,772, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the three vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All three vendors were tested. For all three, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. For fiscal year 2023, six vendors, totaling $264,106, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. One of the six vendors was a bankcard used to pay several different vendors; however, individual determinations of amount spent by vendor could not be determined, and thus it was considered under this threshold. All six vendors were tested. For five of the six, totaling $252,906, the Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. FINDING 2023-004 (Continued) Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation in order to review the procedures in place for verifying that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the Cooperative disclosed they relied on a clause to be included in the vendor contracts to ensure compliance. Two covered transactions that equaled or exceeded $25,000 were identified. Both transactions, totaling $192,218, were selected for testing. One of the two transactions, totaling $44,883, included the appropriate clause. For the other vendor, the Cooperative did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance regarding suspension and debarment were isolated to fiscal year 2023. Identification as a repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal control and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.