2024-001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed-through the Texas Department of State Health Services FFAL #93.958 Mental Health Block Grant (Federal Award) (Contract numbers HHS000502700001, HHS001108400004, HHS001204800001, and H79SM085571-01) Health Community Collaboratives (State Award – No FFAL) Allowable Costs Cash Management Non-Material Noncompliance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Criteria: Section 2 CFR 200.414 establishes that recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). The recipient or subrecipient is authorized to determine the appropriate rate up to this limit. When applying the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either direct or indirect costs and may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de minimis rate does not require documentation to justify its use and may be used indefinitely. Once elected, the recipient or subrecipient must use the de minimis rate for all Federal awards until the recipient or subrecipient chooses to receive a negotiated rate. Per 2 CFR 200.1, modified total direct cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs. TxGMS follow this same guidance. Condition: The Center did not exclude charges for patient care when calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC). Cause: Due to the Center improperly calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC), an indirect rate other than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate elected by the Center and allowed under the Uniform Guidance and TxGMS was being charged to and reimbursed by the federal and state grants. Effect: Insufficient procedures and internal controls over cash management resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: Mental Health Block Grant – Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $5,139. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $39,283. Healthy Community Collaboratives - Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $26,426. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $88,200. Context/Sampling: Mental Health Block Grant – A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $843,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $5,850,000. Healthy Community Collaboratives - A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $949,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $2,750,000. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Center establish and adhere to policies and procedures, including internal controls, to ensure compliance with cash management requirements as established by 2 CFR 200.414 and 2 CFR 200.1 and TxGMS. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
2024-001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed-through the Texas Department of State Health Services FFAL #93.958 Mental Health Block Grant (Federal Award) (Contract numbers HHS000502700001, HHS001108400004, HHS001204800001, and H79SM085571-01) Health Community Collaboratives (State Award – No FFAL) Allowable Costs Cash Management Non-Material Noncompliance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Criteria: Section 2 CFR 200.414 establishes that recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). The recipient or subrecipient is authorized to determine the appropriate rate up to this limit. When applying the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either direct or indirect costs and may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de minimis rate does not require documentation to justify its use and may be used indefinitely. Once elected, the recipient or subrecipient must use the de minimis rate for all Federal awards until the recipient or subrecipient chooses to receive a negotiated rate. Per 2 CFR 200.1, modified total direct cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs. TxGMS follow this same guidance. Condition: The Center did not exclude charges for patient care when calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC). Cause: Due to the Center improperly calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC), an indirect rate other than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate elected by the Center and allowed under the Uniform Guidance and TxGMS was being charged to and reimbursed by the federal and state grants. Effect: Insufficient procedures and internal controls over cash management resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: Mental Health Block Grant – Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $5,139. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $39,283. Healthy Community Collaboratives - Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $26,426. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $88,200. Context/Sampling: Mental Health Block Grant – A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $843,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $5,850,000. Healthy Community Collaboratives - A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $949,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $2,750,000. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Center establish and adhere to policies and procedures, including internal controls, to ensure compliance with cash management requirements as established by 2 CFR 200.414 and 2 CFR 200.1 and TxGMS. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
Reporting – FFATA Subawards Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Federal Program Title: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Cluster ALN: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 23A55AY000040–01–00 April 1, 2023 – June 30, 2026 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), Texas Workforce (TWC) must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that TWC 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). Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) (Pub. L. No. 109- 282), as amended by Section 6202 of Public Law 110-252, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Condition: As the prime recipient of grant funding, TWC is responsible for reporting first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more in FSRS. Audit procedures included testing 59 subawards made during the fiscal year for FFATA requirements, including subawards made by Texas Education Agency (TEA) using state pass through funds from TWC. TWC passed through $3,000,000 of federal grant funds to TEA who in turn made 33 subawards totaling $2,911,755. Based on Part 3 of the 2024 compliance supplement, transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship. Accordingly, subawards made by TEA should be reported in FSRS by TWC as the prime recipient. The following compliance exceptions were identified: See chart or table in the Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Questioned costs: None Context: See “Condition.” Cause: TWC considered the funds passed through to TEA as a subaward and reported these amounts in FSRS. However, as TEA is an agency of the State of Texas, it does not meet the definition of a subrecipient. Effect: Failure to submit FFATA subawards timely may lead to noncompliance with federal requirements. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that, as the prime recipient, TWC coordinate with state pass through entities to obtain the information needed for FFATA reporting in order to be compliant with FFATA requirements. Views of responsible officials: In this situation, TWC disagrees with the applicability of the following statement “Transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship” from the Fiscal Year 2024 2 CFR Part 200, Appendix XI Compliance Supplement. According to 2 CFR Part 170, TWC is required to report first-tier subawards. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) which designates TEA as a subrecipient of TWC making TEA a first_x0002_tier grantee of TWC. Neither TWC nor TEA considers this funding a “transfer.” The definition of a pass-through entity according to 2 CFR Part 200, means a recipient or subrecipient that provides a subaward to a subrecipient (including lower tier subrecipients) to carry out a federal program. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) that establishes a relationship that would not be considered a transfer but a first tier subaward. The IAC establishes TWC as a pass-through entity and TEA as a subrecipient per the definitions of these terms in 2 CFR 200.1. Under the requirements for pass-through entities at 2 CFR 200.332, TWC is responsible for monitoring TEA performance under this subaward which may include enforcement under 2 CFR 200.339 and the recovery of costs associated with subrecipient noncompliance. This contractual consideration and possibility of repayment supports that this relationship is one of pass-through and subrecipient, and not a transfer of a federal award to another component of an auditee. As such, subawards made by TEA are in fact second tier subawards for TWC and TWC has no obligation to report them as established in Appendix A 2 CFR Part 170. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) was passed in the vein of openness and transparency to the public as it relates to Federal spending. Reporting on first-tier subawards took effect October 1, 2010. (See OMB Memorandum for Senior Accountable Officials, “Open Government Directive–Federal Spending Transparency and Subaward and Compensation Data Reporting,” August 27, 2010.) FFATA, § 2—Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, directed the Office of Management and Budget to “ensure the existence and operation of a single searchable website, accessible by the public at no cost to access, that includes for each Federal award—(A) the name of the entity receiving the award” and other specified information. (See Public Law 109-282, §2(b).) That website is USASpending.gov. On that website, a search by “recipient” does not have an option to search for “State of Texas.” Rather, the search options individually list the Texas Workforce Commission and other Texas state agencies as separate recipients. When TWC makes an interagency pass-through contract to another state agency, TWC has always treated that other state agency as first-tier subrecipient for FFATA reporting purposes. That decision was based on guidance and interpretation of information available when the FFATA subaward reporting requirements took effect in 2010. TWC has continued in that manner with no audit finding on that approach until now. If TWC adheres to the recommendation made by this finding, the public will no longer have access to the interagency contract amounts through USASpending.gov. The USASpending.gov data presented to the public will instead indicate that the subrecipients of another state agency received subawards directly from TWC, which is inaccurate, will make the USASpending.gov data of the other state agency incomplete, and will cause the USASpending.gov data to be inconsistent with both state agencies’ presentation of those subawards in their respective systems and financial statements. In effect, the USASpending.gov data will represent the subawards of the other state agency as TWC’s subrecipients, while TWC’s systems and financial statements will have no record of those subawards beyond FFATA reporting. Similarly, the other state agency’s systems and financial statements will reflect those subawards as its own, but with no related reflection of that relationship in USASpending.gov. If the public were to submit an open records request about the subawards, the State’s response would be delayed by one state agency collecting data from the other, and inconsistent with the public’s expectation as to which state agency issued and managed those subawards. Those effects seem inconsistent with FFATA’s openness and transparency goals.
Reporting – FFATA Subawards Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Federal Program Title: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Cluster ALN: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 23A55AY000040–01–00 April 1, 2023 – June 30, 2026 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), Texas Workforce (TWC) must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that TWC 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). Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) (Pub. L. No. 109- 282), as amended by Section 6202 of Public Law 110-252, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Condition: As the prime recipient of grant funding, TWC is responsible for reporting first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more in FSRS. Audit procedures included testing 59 subawards made during the fiscal year for FFATA requirements, including subawards made by Texas Education Agency (TEA) using state pass through funds from TWC. TWC passed through $3,000,000 of federal grant funds to TEA who in turn made 33 subawards totaling $2,911,755. Based on Part 3 of the 2024 compliance supplement, transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship. Accordingly, subawards made by TEA should be reported in FSRS by TWC as the prime recipient. The following compliance exceptions were identified: See chart or table in the Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Questioned costs: None Context: See “Condition.” Cause: TWC considered the funds passed through to TEA as a subaward and reported these amounts in FSRS. However, as TEA is an agency of the State of Texas, it does not meet the definition of a subrecipient. Effect: Failure to submit FFATA subawards timely may lead to noncompliance with federal requirements. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that, as the prime recipient, TWC coordinate with state pass through entities to obtain the information needed for FFATA reporting in order to be compliant with FFATA requirements. Views of responsible officials: In this situation, TWC disagrees with the applicability of the following statement “Transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship” from the Fiscal Year 2024 2 CFR Part 200, Appendix XI Compliance Supplement. According to 2 CFR Part 170, TWC is required to report first-tier subawards. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) which designates TEA as a subrecipient of TWC making TEA a first_x0002_tier grantee of TWC. Neither TWC nor TEA considers this funding a “transfer.” The definition of a pass-through entity according to 2 CFR Part 200, means a recipient or subrecipient that provides a subaward to a subrecipient (including lower tier subrecipients) to carry out a federal program. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) that establishes a relationship that would not be considered a transfer but a first tier subaward. The IAC establishes TWC as a pass-through entity and TEA as a subrecipient per the definitions of these terms in 2 CFR 200.1. Under the requirements for pass-through entities at 2 CFR 200.332, TWC is responsible for monitoring TEA performance under this subaward which may include enforcement under 2 CFR 200.339 and the recovery of costs associated with subrecipient noncompliance. This contractual consideration and possibility of repayment supports that this relationship is one of pass-through and subrecipient, and not a transfer of a federal award to another component of an auditee. As such, subawards made by TEA are in fact second tier subawards for TWC and TWC has no obligation to report them as established in Appendix A 2 CFR Part 170. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) was passed in the vein of openness and transparency to the public as it relates to Federal spending. Reporting on first-tier subawards took effect October 1, 2010. (See OMB Memorandum for Senior Accountable Officials, “Open Government Directive–Federal Spending Transparency and Subaward and Compensation Data Reporting,” August 27, 2010.) FFATA, § 2—Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, directed the Office of Management and Budget to “ensure the existence and operation of a single searchable website, accessible by the public at no cost to access, that includes for each Federal award—(A) the name of the entity receiving the award” and other specified information. (See Public Law 109-282, §2(b).) That website is USASpending.gov. On that website, a search by “recipient” does not have an option to search for “State of Texas.” Rather, the search options individually list the Texas Workforce Commission and other Texas state agencies as separate recipients. When TWC makes an interagency pass-through contract to another state agency, TWC has always treated that other state agency as first-tier subrecipient for FFATA reporting purposes. That decision was based on guidance and interpretation of information available when the FFATA subaward reporting requirements took effect in 2010. TWC has continued in that manner with no audit finding on that approach until now. If TWC adheres to the recommendation made by this finding, the public will no longer have access to the interagency contract amounts through USASpending.gov. The USASpending.gov data presented to the public will instead indicate that the subrecipients of another state agency received subawards directly from TWC, which is inaccurate, will make the USASpending.gov data of the other state agency incomplete, and will cause the USASpending.gov data to be inconsistent with both state agencies’ presentation of those subawards in their respective systems and financial statements. In effect, the USASpending.gov data will represent the subawards of the other state agency as TWC’s subrecipients, while TWC’s systems and financial statements will have no record of those subawards beyond FFATA reporting. Similarly, the other state agency’s systems and financial statements will reflect those subawards as its own, but with no related reflection of that relationship in USASpending.gov. If the public were to submit an open records request about the subawards, the State’s response would be delayed by one state agency collecting data from the other, and inconsistent with the public’s expectation as to which state agency issued and managed those subawards. Those effects seem inconsistent with FFATA’s openness and transparency goals.
Reporting – FFATA Subawards Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Federal Program Title: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Cluster ALN: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 23A55AY000040–01–00 April 1, 2023 – June 30, 2026 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), Texas Workforce (TWC) must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that TWC 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). Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) (Pub. L. No. 109- 282), as amended by Section 6202 of Public Law 110-252, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Condition: As the prime recipient of grant funding, TWC is responsible for reporting first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more in FSRS. Audit procedures included testing 59 subawards made during the fiscal year for FFATA requirements, including subawards made by Texas Education Agency (TEA) using state pass through funds from TWC. TWC passed through $3,000,000 of federal grant funds to TEA who in turn made 33 subawards totaling $2,911,755. Based on Part 3 of the 2024 compliance supplement, transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship. Accordingly, subawards made by TEA should be reported in FSRS by TWC as the prime recipient. The following compliance exceptions were identified: See chart or table in the Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Questioned costs: None Context: See “Condition.” Cause: TWC considered the funds passed through to TEA as a subaward and reported these amounts in FSRS. However, as TEA is an agency of the State of Texas, it does not meet the definition of a subrecipient. Effect: Failure to submit FFATA subawards timely may lead to noncompliance with federal requirements. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that, as the prime recipient, TWC coordinate with state pass through entities to obtain the information needed for FFATA reporting in order to be compliant with FFATA requirements. Views of responsible officials: In this situation, TWC disagrees with the applicability of the following statement “Transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship” from the Fiscal Year 2024 2 CFR Part 200, Appendix XI Compliance Supplement. According to 2 CFR Part 170, TWC is required to report first-tier subawards. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) which designates TEA as a subrecipient of TWC making TEA a first_x0002_tier grantee of TWC. Neither TWC nor TEA considers this funding a “transfer.” The definition of a pass-through entity according to 2 CFR Part 200, means a recipient or subrecipient that provides a subaward to a subrecipient (including lower tier subrecipients) to carry out a federal program. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) that establishes a relationship that would not be considered a transfer but a first tier subaward. The IAC establishes TWC as a pass-through entity and TEA as a subrecipient per the definitions of these terms in 2 CFR 200.1. Under the requirements for pass-through entities at 2 CFR 200.332, TWC is responsible for monitoring TEA performance under this subaward which may include enforcement under 2 CFR 200.339 and the recovery of costs associated with subrecipient noncompliance. This contractual consideration and possibility of repayment supports that this relationship is one of pass-through and subrecipient, and not a transfer of a federal award to another component of an auditee. As such, subawards made by TEA are in fact second tier subawards for TWC and TWC has no obligation to report them as established in Appendix A 2 CFR Part 170. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) was passed in the vein of openness and transparency to the public as it relates to Federal spending. Reporting on first-tier subawards took effect October 1, 2010. (See OMB Memorandum for Senior Accountable Officials, “Open Government Directive–Federal Spending Transparency and Subaward and Compensation Data Reporting,” August 27, 2010.) FFATA, § 2—Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, directed the Office of Management and Budget to “ensure the existence and operation of a single searchable website, accessible by the public at no cost to access, that includes for each Federal award—(A) the name of the entity receiving the award” and other specified information. (See Public Law 109-282, §2(b).) That website is USASpending.gov. On that website, a search by “recipient” does not have an option to search for “State of Texas.” Rather, the search options individually list the Texas Workforce Commission and other Texas state agencies as separate recipients. When TWC makes an interagency pass-through contract to another state agency, TWC has always treated that other state agency as first-tier subrecipient for FFATA reporting purposes. That decision was based on guidance and interpretation of information available when the FFATA subaward reporting requirements took effect in 2010. TWC has continued in that manner with no audit finding on that approach until now. If TWC adheres to the recommendation made by this finding, the public will no longer have access to the interagency contract amounts through USASpending.gov. The USASpending.gov data presented to the public will instead indicate that the subrecipients of another state agency received subawards directly from TWC, which is inaccurate, will make the USASpending.gov data of the other state agency incomplete, and will cause the USASpending.gov data to be inconsistent with both state agencies’ presentation of those subawards in their respective systems and financial statements. In effect, the USASpending.gov data will represent the subawards of the other state agency as TWC’s subrecipients, while TWC’s systems and financial statements will have no record of those subawards beyond FFATA reporting. Similarly, the other state agency’s systems and financial statements will reflect those subawards as its own, but with no related reflection of that relationship in USASpending.gov. If the public were to submit an open records request about the subawards, the State’s response would be delayed by one state agency collecting data from the other, and inconsistent with the public’s expectation as to which state agency issued and managed those subawards. Those effects seem inconsistent with FFATA’s openness and transparency goals.
Reporting – FFATA Subawards Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Federal Program Title: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Cluster ALN: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 23A55AY000040–01–00 April 1, 2023 – June 30, 2026 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), Texas Workforce (TWC) must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that TWC 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). Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) (Pub. L. No. 109- 282), as amended by Section 6202 of Public Law 110-252, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Condition: As the prime recipient of grant funding, TWC is responsible for reporting first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more in FSRS. Audit procedures included testing 59 subawards made during the fiscal year for FFATA requirements, including subawards made by Texas Education Agency (TEA) using state pass through funds from TWC. TWC passed through $3,000,000 of federal grant funds to TEA who in turn made 33 subawards totaling $2,911,755. Based on Part 3 of the 2024 compliance supplement, transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship. Accordingly, subawards made by TEA should be reported in FSRS by TWC as the prime recipient. The following compliance exceptions were identified: See chart or table in the Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Questioned costs: None Context: See “Condition.” Cause: TWC considered the funds passed through to TEA as a subaward and reported these amounts in FSRS. However, as TEA is an agency of the State of Texas, it does not meet the definition of a subrecipient. Effect: Failure to submit FFATA subawards timely may lead to noncompliance with federal requirements. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that, as the prime recipient, TWC coordinate with state pass through entities to obtain the information needed for FFATA reporting in order to be compliant with FFATA requirements. Views of responsible officials: In this situation, TWC disagrees with the applicability of the following statement “Transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship” from the Fiscal Year 2024 2 CFR Part 200, Appendix XI Compliance Supplement. According to 2 CFR Part 170, TWC is required to report first-tier subawards. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) which designates TEA as a subrecipient of TWC making TEA a first_x0002_tier grantee of TWC. Neither TWC nor TEA considers this funding a “transfer.” The definition of a pass-through entity according to 2 CFR Part 200, means a recipient or subrecipient that provides a subaward to a subrecipient (including lower tier subrecipients) to carry out a federal program. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) that establishes a relationship that would not be considered a transfer but a first tier subaward. The IAC establishes TWC as a pass-through entity and TEA as a subrecipient per the definitions of these terms in 2 CFR 200.1. Under the requirements for pass-through entities at 2 CFR 200.332, TWC is responsible for monitoring TEA performance under this subaward which may include enforcement under 2 CFR 200.339 and the recovery of costs associated with subrecipient noncompliance. This contractual consideration and possibility of repayment supports that this relationship is one of pass-through and subrecipient, and not a transfer of a federal award to another component of an auditee. As such, subawards made by TEA are in fact second tier subawards for TWC and TWC has no obligation to report them as established in Appendix A 2 CFR Part 170. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) was passed in the vein of openness and transparency to the public as it relates to Federal spending. Reporting on first-tier subawards took effect October 1, 2010. (See OMB Memorandum for Senior Accountable Officials, “Open Government Directive–Federal Spending Transparency and Subaward and Compensation Data Reporting,” August 27, 2010.) FFATA, § 2—Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, directed the Office of Management and Budget to “ensure the existence and operation of a single searchable website, accessible by the public at no cost to access, that includes for each Federal award—(A) the name of the entity receiving the award” and other specified information. (See Public Law 109-282, §2(b).) That website is USASpending.gov. On that website, a search by “recipient” does not have an option to search for “State of Texas.” Rather, the search options individually list the Texas Workforce Commission and other Texas state agencies as separate recipients. When TWC makes an interagency pass-through contract to another state agency, TWC has always treated that other state agency as first-tier subrecipient for FFATA reporting purposes. That decision was based on guidance and interpretation of information available when the FFATA subaward reporting requirements took effect in 2010. TWC has continued in that manner with no audit finding on that approach until now. If TWC adheres to the recommendation made by this finding, the public will no longer have access to the interagency contract amounts through USASpending.gov. The USASpending.gov data presented to the public will instead indicate that the subrecipients of another state agency received subawards directly from TWC, which is inaccurate, will make the USASpending.gov data of the other state agency incomplete, and will cause the USASpending.gov data to be inconsistent with both state agencies’ presentation of those subawards in their respective systems and financial statements. In effect, the USASpending.gov data will represent the subawards of the other state agency as TWC’s subrecipients, while TWC’s systems and financial statements will have no record of those subawards beyond FFATA reporting. Similarly, the other state agency’s systems and financial statements will reflect those subawards as its own, but with no related reflection of that relationship in USASpending.gov. If the public were to submit an open records request about the subawards, the State’s response would be delayed by one state agency collecting data from the other, and inconsistent with the public’s expectation as to which state agency issued and managed those subawards. Those effects seem inconsistent with FFATA’s openness and transparency goals.
Reporting – FFATA Subawards Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Federal Program Title: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Cluster ALN: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 23A55AY000040–01–00 April 1, 2023 – June 30, 2026 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), Texas Workforce (TWC) must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that TWC 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). Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) (Pub. L. No. 109- 282), as amended by Section 6202 of Public Law 110-252, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Condition: As the prime recipient of grant funding, TWC is responsible for reporting first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more in FSRS. Audit procedures included testing 59 subawards made during the fiscal year for FFATA requirements, including subawards made by Texas Education Agency (TEA) using state pass through funds from TWC. TWC passed through $3,000,000 of federal grant funds to TEA who in turn made 33 subawards totaling $2,911,755. Based on Part 3 of the 2024 compliance supplement, transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship. Accordingly, subawards made by TEA should be reported in FSRS by TWC as the prime recipient. The following compliance exceptions were identified: See chart or table in the Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Questioned costs: None Context: See “Condition.” Cause: TWC considered the funds passed through to TEA as a subaward and reported these amounts in FSRS. However, as TEA is an agency of the State of Texas, it does not meet the definition of a subrecipient. Effect: Failure to submit FFATA subawards timely may lead to noncompliance with federal requirements. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that, as the prime recipient, TWC coordinate with state pass through entities to obtain the information needed for FFATA reporting in order to be compliant with FFATA requirements. Views of responsible officials: In this situation, TWC disagrees with the applicability of the following statement “Transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship” from the Fiscal Year 2024 2 CFR Part 200, Appendix XI Compliance Supplement. According to 2 CFR Part 170, TWC is required to report first-tier subawards. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) which designates TEA as a subrecipient of TWC making TEA a first_x0002_tier grantee of TWC. Neither TWC nor TEA considers this funding a “transfer.” The definition of a pass-through entity according to 2 CFR Part 200, means a recipient or subrecipient that provides a subaward to a subrecipient (including lower tier subrecipients) to carry out a federal program. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) that establishes a relationship that would not be considered a transfer but a first tier subaward. The IAC establishes TWC as a pass-through entity and TEA as a subrecipient per the definitions of these terms in 2 CFR 200.1. Under the requirements for pass-through entities at 2 CFR 200.332, TWC is responsible for monitoring TEA performance under this subaward which may include enforcement under 2 CFR 200.339 and the recovery of costs associated with subrecipient noncompliance. This contractual consideration and possibility of repayment supports that this relationship is one of pass-through and subrecipient, and not a transfer of a federal award to another component of an auditee. As such, subawards made by TEA are in fact second tier subawards for TWC and TWC has no obligation to report them as established in Appendix A 2 CFR Part 170. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) was passed in the vein of openness and transparency to the public as it relates to Federal spending. Reporting on first-tier subawards took effect October 1, 2010. (See OMB Memorandum for Senior Accountable Officials, “Open Government Directive–Federal Spending Transparency and Subaward and Compensation Data Reporting,” August 27, 2010.) FFATA, § 2—Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, directed the Office of Management and Budget to “ensure the existence and operation of a single searchable website, accessible by the public at no cost to access, that includes for each Federal award—(A) the name of the entity receiving the award” and other specified information. (See Public Law 109-282, §2(b).) That website is USASpending.gov. On that website, a search by “recipient” does not have an option to search for “State of Texas.” Rather, the search options individually list the Texas Workforce Commission and other Texas state agencies as separate recipients. When TWC makes an interagency pass-through contract to another state agency, TWC has always treated that other state agency as first-tier subrecipient for FFATA reporting purposes. That decision was based on guidance and interpretation of information available when the FFATA subaward reporting requirements took effect in 2010. TWC has continued in that manner with no audit finding on that approach until now. If TWC adheres to the recommendation made by this finding, the public will no longer have access to the interagency contract amounts through USASpending.gov. The USASpending.gov data presented to the public will instead indicate that the subrecipients of another state agency received subawards directly from TWC, which is inaccurate, will make the USASpending.gov data of the other state agency incomplete, and will cause the USASpending.gov data to be inconsistent with both state agencies’ presentation of those subawards in their respective systems and financial statements. In effect, the USASpending.gov data will represent the subawards of the other state agency as TWC’s subrecipients, while TWC’s systems and financial statements will have no record of those subawards beyond FFATA reporting. Similarly, the other state agency’s systems and financial statements will reflect those subawards as its own, but with no related reflection of that relationship in USASpending.gov. If the public were to submit an open records request about the subawards, the State’s response would be delayed by one state agency collecting data from the other, and inconsistent with the public’s expectation as to which state agency issued and managed those subawards. Those effects seem inconsistent with FFATA’s openness and transparency goals.
2024-001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed-through the Texas Department of State Health Services FFAL #93.958 Mental Health Block Grant (Federal Award) (Contract numbers HHS000502700001, HHS001108400004, HHS001204800001, and H79SM085571-01) Health Community Collaboratives (State Award – No FFAL) Allowable Costs Cash Management Non-Material Noncompliance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Criteria: Section 2 CFR 200.414 establishes that recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). The recipient or subrecipient is authorized to determine the appropriate rate up to this limit. When applying the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either direct or indirect costs and may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de minimis rate does not require documentation to justify its use and may be used indefinitely. Once elected, the recipient or subrecipient must use the de minimis rate for all Federal awards until the recipient or subrecipient chooses to receive a negotiated rate. Per 2 CFR 200.1, modified total direct cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs. TxGMS follow this same guidance. Condition: The Center did not exclude charges for patient care when calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC). Cause: Due to the Center improperly calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC), an indirect rate other than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate elected by the Center and allowed under the Uniform Guidance and TxGMS was being charged to and reimbursed by the federal and state grants. Effect: Insufficient procedures and internal controls over cash management resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: Mental Health Block Grant – Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $5,139. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $39,283. Healthy Community Collaboratives - Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $26,426. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $88,200. Context/Sampling: Mental Health Block Grant – A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $843,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $5,850,000. Healthy Community Collaboratives - A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $949,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $2,750,000. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Center establish and adhere to policies and procedures, including internal controls, to ensure compliance with cash management requirements as established by 2 CFR 200.414 and 2 CFR 200.1 and TxGMS. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
2024-001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed-through the Texas Department of State Health Services FFAL #93.958 Mental Health Block Grant (Federal Award) (Contract numbers HHS000502700001, HHS001108400004, HHS001204800001, and H79SM085571-01) Health Community Collaboratives (State Award – No FFAL) Allowable Costs Cash Management Non-Material Noncompliance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Criteria: Section 2 CFR 200.414 establishes that recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). The recipient or subrecipient is authorized to determine the appropriate rate up to this limit. When applying the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either direct or indirect costs and may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de minimis rate does not require documentation to justify its use and may be used indefinitely. Once elected, the recipient or subrecipient must use the de minimis rate for all Federal awards until the recipient or subrecipient chooses to receive a negotiated rate. Per 2 CFR 200.1, modified total direct cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs. TxGMS follow this same guidance. Condition: The Center did not exclude charges for patient care when calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC). Cause: Due to the Center improperly calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC), an indirect rate other than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate elected by the Center and allowed under the Uniform Guidance and TxGMS was being charged to and reimbursed by the federal and state grants. Effect: Insufficient procedures and internal controls over cash management resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: Mental Health Block Grant – Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $5,139. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $39,283. Healthy Community Collaboratives - Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $26,426. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $88,200. Context/Sampling: Mental Health Block Grant – A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $843,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $5,850,000. Healthy Community Collaboratives - A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $949,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $2,750,000. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Center establish and adhere to policies and procedures, including internal controls, to ensure compliance with cash management requirements as established by 2 CFR 200.414 and 2 CFR 200.1 and TxGMS. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
2024-001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed-through the Texas Department of State Health Services FFAL #93.958 Mental Health Block Grant (Federal Award) (Contract numbers HHS000502700001, HHS001108400004, HHS001204800001, and H79SM085571-01) Health Community Collaboratives (State Award – No FFAL) Allowable Costs Cash Management Non-Material Noncompliance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Criteria: Section 2 CFR 200.414 establishes that recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). The recipient or subrecipient is authorized to determine the appropriate rate up to this limit. When applying the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either direct or indirect costs and may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de minimis rate does not require documentation to justify its use and may be used indefinitely. Once elected, the recipient or subrecipient must use the de minimis rate for all Federal awards until the recipient or subrecipient chooses to receive a negotiated rate. Per 2 CFR 200.1, modified total direct cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs. TxGMS follow this same guidance. Condition: The Center did not exclude charges for patient care when calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC). Cause: Due to the Center improperly calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC), an indirect rate other than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate elected by the Center and allowed under the Uniform Guidance and TxGMS was being charged to and reimbursed by the federal and state grants. Effect: Insufficient procedures and internal controls over cash management resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: Mental Health Block Grant – Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $5,139. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $39,283. Healthy Community Collaboratives - Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $26,426. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $88,200. Context/Sampling: Mental Health Block Grant – A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $843,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $5,850,000. Healthy Community Collaboratives - A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $949,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $2,750,000. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Center establish and adhere to policies and procedures, including internal controls, to ensure compliance with cash management requirements as established by 2 CFR 200.414 and 2 CFR 200.1 and TxGMS. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
2024-001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed-through the Texas Department of State Health Services FFAL #93.958 Mental Health Block Grant (Federal Award) (Contract numbers HHS000502700001, HHS001108400004, HHS001204800001, and H79SM085571-01) Health Community Collaboratives (State Award – No FFAL) Allowable Costs Cash Management Non-Material Noncompliance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Criteria: Section 2 CFR 200.414 establishes that recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). The recipient or subrecipient is authorized to determine the appropriate rate up to this limit. When applying the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either direct or indirect costs and may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de minimis rate does not require documentation to justify its use and may be used indefinitely. Once elected, the recipient or subrecipient must use the de minimis rate for all Federal awards until the recipient or subrecipient chooses to receive a negotiated rate. Per 2 CFR 200.1, modified total direct cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs. TxGMS follow this same guidance. Condition: The Center did not exclude charges for patient care when calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC). Cause: Due to the Center improperly calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC), an indirect rate other than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate elected by the Center and allowed under the Uniform Guidance and TxGMS was being charged to and reimbursed by the federal and state grants. Effect: Insufficient procedures and internal controls over cash management resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: Mental Health Block Grant – Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $5,139. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $39,283. Healthy Community Collaboratives - Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $26,426. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $88,200. Context/Sampling: Mental Health Block Grant – A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $843,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $5,850,000. Healthy Community Collaboratives - A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $949,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $2,750,000. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Center establish and adhere to policies and procedures, including internal controls, to ensure compliance with cash management requirements as established by 2 CFR 200.414 and 2 CFR 200.1 and TxGMS. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
2024-001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed-through the Texas Department of State Health Services FFAL #93.958 Mental Health Block Grant (Federal Award) (Contract numbers HHS000502700001, HHS001108400004, HHS001204800001, and H79SM085571-01) Health Community Collaboratives (State Award – No FFAL) Allowable Costs Cash Management Non-Material Noncompliance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Criteria: Section 2 CFR 200.414 establishes that recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). The recipient or subrecipient is authorized to determine the appropriate rate up to this limit. When applying the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either direct or indirect costs and may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de minimis rate does not require documentation to justify its use and may be used indefinitely. Once elected, the recipient or subrecipient must use the de minimis rate for all Federal awards until the recipient or subrecipient chooses to receive a negotiated rate. Per 2 CFR 200.1, modified total direct cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs. TxGMS follow this same guidance. Condition: The Center did not exclude charges for patient care when calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC). Cause: Due to the Center improperly calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC), an indirect rate other than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate elected by the Center and allowed under the Uniform Guidance and TxGMS was being charged to and reimbursed by the federal and state grants. Effect: Insufficient procedures and internal controls over cash management resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: Mental Health Block Grant – Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $5,139. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $39,283. Healthy Community Collaboratives - Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $26,426. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $88,200. Context/Sampling: Mental Health Block Grant – A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $843,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $5,850,000. Healthy Community Collaboratives - A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $949,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $2,750,000. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Center establish and adhere to policies and procedures, including internal controls, to ensure compliance with cash management requirements as established by 2 CFR 200.414 and 2 CFR 200.1 and TxGMS. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
2024-001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed-through the Texas Department of State Health Services FFAL #93.958 Mental Health Block Grant (Federal Award) (Contract numbers HHS000502700001, HHS001108400004, HHS001204800001, and H79SM085571-01) Health Community Collaboratives (State Award – No FFAL) Allowable Costs Cash Management Non-Material Noncompliance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Criteria: Section 2 CFR 200.414 establishes that recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). The recipient or subrecipient is authorized to determine the appropriate rate up to this limit. When applying the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either direct or indirect costs and may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de minimis rate does not require documentation to justify its use and may be used indefinitely. Once elected, the recipient or subrecipient must use the de minimis rate for all Federal awards until the recipient or subrecipient chooses to receive a negotiated rate. Per 2 CFR 200.1, modified total direct cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs. TxGMS follow this same guidance. Condition: The Center did not exclude charges for patient care when calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC). Cause: Due to the Center improperly calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC), an indirect rate other than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate elected by the Center and allowed under the Uniform Guidance and TxGMS was being charged to and reimbursed by the federal and state grants. Effect: Insufficient procedures and internal controls over cash management resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: Mental Health Block Grant – Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $5,139. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $39,283. Healthy Community Collaboratives - Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $26,426. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $88,200. Context/Sampling: Mental Health Block Grant – A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $843,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $5,850,000. Healthy Community Collaboratives - A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $949,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $2,750,000. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Center establish and adhere to policies and procedures, including internal controls, to ensure compliance with cash management requirements as established by 2 CFR 200.414 and 2 CFR 200.1 and TxGMS. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
FINDING 2024-001 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Program, School Summer Food Service Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 2023, FY 2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over 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 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: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the Child Nutrition Program and Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish internal controls enabled noncompliance to go undetected. The failure to comply with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: 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 $50,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. The School Corporation’s policy states that the small purchase threshold is between $10,000 and $150,000. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2023, two vendors, totaling $109,657 and $53,441, were selected for testing at the small purchase threshold. The School Corporation 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 was isolated to fiscal year 2023. 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. During the audit period, there were ten vendors identified which exceeded $25,000 in disbursements on an annual basis. Six vendors were selected for testing. In one instance, the School Corporation’s contract with the vendor did not include any suspension and debarment clause and the School Corporation did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was systemic issues throughout the audit period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish and implement control procedures to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. This should include documenting the procurement process taken by management for transactions with vendors exceeding the simplified acquisition and small purchase thresholds. When utilizing vendors providing specialized services, documentation should be prepared and maintained by management to support sole source procurement decisions when competitive is limited due to the nature of the service. We also recommend implement an annual control to review and document suspension and debarment checks for all vendors funded with Child Nutrition Cluster grant funds that meet the covered transaction threshold of $25,000. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-001 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Program, School Summer Food Service Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 2023, FY 2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over 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 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: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the Child Nutrition Program and Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish internal controls enabled noncompliance to go undetected. The failure to comply with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: 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 $50,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. The School Corporation’s policy states that the small purchase threshold is between $10,000 and $150,000. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2023, two vendors, totaling $109,657 and $53,441, were selected for testing at the small purchase threshold. The School Corporation 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 was isolated to fiscal year 2023. 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. During the audit period, there were ten vendors identified which exceeded $25,000 in disbursements on an annual basis. Six vendors were selected for testing. In one instance, the School Corporation’s contract with the vendor did not include any suspension and debarment clause and the School Corporation did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was systemic issues throughout the audit period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish and implement control procedures to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. This should include documenting the procurement process taken by management for transactions with vendors exceeding the simplified acquisition and small purchase thresholds. When utilizing vendors providing specialized services, documentation should be prepared and maintained by management to support sole source procurement decisions when competitive is limited due to the nature of the service. We also recommend implement an annual control to review and document suspension and debarment checks for all vendors funded with Child Nutrition Cluster grant funds that meet the covered transaction threshold of $25,000. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-001 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Program, School Summer Food Service Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 2023, FY 2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over 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 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: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the Child Nutrition Program and Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish internal controls enabled noncompliance to go undetected. The failure to comply with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: 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 $50,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. The School Corporation’s policy states that the small purchase threshold is between $10,000 and $150,000. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2023, two vendors, totaling $109,657 and $53,441, were selected for testing at the small purchase threshold. The School Corporation 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 was isolated to fiscal year 2023. 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. During the audit period, there were ten vendors identified which exceeded $25,000 in disbursements on an annual basis. Six vendors were selected for testing. In one instance, the School Corporation’s contract with the vendor did not include any suspension and debarment clause and the School Corporation did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was systemic issues throughout the audit period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish and implement control procedures to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. This should include documenting the procurement process taken by management for transactions with vendors exceeding the simplified acquisition and small purchase thresholds. When utilizing vendors providing specialized services, documentation should be prepared and maintained by management to support sole source procurement decisions when competitive is limited due to the nature of the service. We also recommend implement an annual control to review and document suspension and debarment checks for all vendors funded with Child Nutrition Cluster grant funds that meet the covered transaction threshold of $25,000. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-001 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Program, School Summer Food Service Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 2023, FY 2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over 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 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: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the Child Nutrition Program and Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish internal controls enabled noncompliance to go undetected. The failure to comply with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: 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 $50,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. The School Corporation’s policy states that the small purchase threshold is between $10,000 and $150,000. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2023, two vendors, totaling $109,657 and $53,441, were selected for testing at the small purchase threshold. The School Corporation 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 was isolated to fiscal year 2023. 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. During the audit period, there were ten vendors identified which exceeded $25,000 in disbursements on an annual basis. Six vendors were selected for testing. In one instance, the School Corporation’s contract with the vendor did not include any suspension and debarment clause and the School Corporation did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was systemic issues throughout the audit period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish and implement control procedures to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. This should include documenting the procurement process taken by management for transactions with vendors exceeding the simplified acquisition and small purchase thresholds. When utilizing vendors providing specialized services, documentation should be prepared and maintained by management to support sole source procurement decisions when competitive is limited due to the nature of the service. We also recommend implement an annual control to review and document suspension and debarment checks for all vendors funded with Child Nutrition Cluster grant funds that meet the covered transaction threshold of $25,000. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.
Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-043-ARP; 23611-043-PN01; 24611-043-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over 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 200.320 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: . . . (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. . . . (2) Proposals. A procurement method in which either a fixed price or cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. . . ." Condition: The Cooperative did not obtain sealed bids or competitive proposals, nor was a circumstance met that would have allowed for a noncompetitive procurement for the purchases. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Cause: The Cooperative noted they were unaware of the procurement requirements of expenditures exceeding the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. They stated they have used the same vendors to provide professional services for several years but only recently started using federal grant award funds for the services. Effect or potential effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the Cooperative cannot ensure the vendors paid with federal award funds are procured using the required methods. Without following the required methods for procurement, the Cooperative could be overpaying for services. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2023-2024, the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. When the value of the procurement for property or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), or a lower threshold established by a nonfederal entity, formal procurement methods are required. The SAT is typically set at $250,000; however, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold, and, therefore, the SAT threshold is set at $150,000. Formal procurement methods require adherence to documented procedures and formal methods such as sealed bids or proposals. During the fiscal year 2023-2024, the Cooperative had three vendors which exceeded the SAT and all three vendors were tested. The Cooperative did not obtain sealed bids or competitive proposals, nor was a circumstance met that would have allowed for a noncompetitive procurement for the purchases. The total dollar amount spent with all three vendors was $1,417,349. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: Management of the Cooperative should develop written policies and procedures which would require that appropriate procurement methods are used for vendors that exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. Appropriate documentation should be maintained to ensure the procurement methods are being followed and compliance with Procurement methods are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials and planned corrective actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-043-ARP; 23611-043-PN01; 24611-043-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over 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 200.320 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: . . . (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. . . . (2) Proposals. A procurement method in which either a fixed price or cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. . . ." Condition: The Cooperative did not obtain sealed bids or competitive proposals, nor was a circumstance met that would have allowed for a noncompetitive procurement for the purchases. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Cause: The Cooperative noted they were unaware of the procurement requirements of expenditures exceeding the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. They stated they have used the same vendors to provide professional services for several years but only recently started using federal grant award funds for the services. Effect or potential effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the Cooperative cannot ensure the vendors paid with federal award funds are procured using the required methods. Without following the required methods for procurement, the Cooperative could be overpaying for services. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2023-2024, the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. When the value of the procurement for property or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), or a lower threshold established by a nonfederal entity, formal procurement methods are required. The SAT is typically set at $250,000; however, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold, and, therefore, the SAT threshold is set at $150,000. Formal procurement methods require adherence to documented procedures and formal methods such as sealed bids or proposals. During the fiscal year 2023-2024, the Cooperative had three vendors which exceeded the SAT and all three vendors were tested. The Cooperative did not obtain sealed bids or competitive proposals, nor was a circumstance met that would have allowed for a noncompetitive procurement for the purchases. The total dollar amount spent with all three vendors was $1,417,349. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: Management of the Cooperative should develop written policies and procedures which would require that appropriate procurement methods are used for vendors that exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. Appropriate documentation should be maintained to ensure the procurement methods are being followed and compliance with Procurement methods are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials and planned corrective actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-043-ARP; 23611-043-PN01; 24611-043-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over 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 200.320 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: . . . (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. . . . (2) Proposals. A procurement method in which either a fixed price or cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. . . ." Condition: The Cooperative did not obtain sealed bids or competitive proposals, nor was a circumstance met that would have allowed for a noncompetitive procurement for the purchases. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Cause: The Cooperative noted they were unaware of the procurement requirements of expenditures exceeding the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. They stated they have used the same vendors to provide professional services for several years but only recently started using federal grant award funds for the services. Effect or potential effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the Cooperative cannot ensure the vendors paid with federal award funds are procured using the required methods. Without following the required methods for procurement, the Cooperative could be overpaying for services. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2023-2024, the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. When the value of the procurement for property or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), or a lower threshold established by a nonfederal entity, formal procurement methods are required. The SAT is typically set at $250,000; however, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold, and, therefore, the SAT threshold is set at $150,000. Formal procurement methods require adherence to documented procedures and formal methods such as sealed bids or proposals. During the fiscal year 2023-2024, the Cooperative had three vendors which exceeded the SAT and all three vendors were tested. The Cooperative did not obtain sealed bids or competitive proposals, nor was a circumstance met that would have allowed for a noncompetitive procurement for the purchases. The total dollar amount spent with all three vendors was $1,417,349. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: Management of the Cooperative should develop written policies and procedures which would require that appropriate procurement methods are used for vendors that exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. Appropriate documentation should be maintained to ensure the procurement methods are being followed and compliance with Procurement methods are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials and planned corrective actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
2024-001 Internal Control over Compliance and Compliance with Period of Performance Identification of the Federal Program: United States Department of Justice Assistance Listing Number: 16.726 Assistance Listing Name: Juvenile Mentoring Program Grant Award Number: 15PJDP-21-GG-02766-MENT Award Period: October 1, 2021 through June 30, 2024 Criteria or Specific Requirement: §200.303 Internal Controls states that a 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. Per 2 CFR Section 200.1 Period of performance means the time during which the non–Federal entity may incur new obligations to carry out the work authorized under the Federal award. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity must include start and end dates of the period of performance in the Federal award (see Sections 200.211 Information contained in a Federal award paragraph (b)(5) and 200.332 Requirements for pass-through entities, paragraph (b)(1)(v)). Condition: During the audit, we tested Council’s period of performance of subrecipient costs. We noted that Council has documented policies and procedures to comply with period of performance requirements and in all twenty-four samples tested complied with the prime award period of performance. However, in one sample out of twenty-four tested, Council paid the subrecipient $1,322 for expenses that were incurred after the subaward period of performance. Upon identifying this condition in our audit procedures, Council management determined that a total of $5,635 was paid to the subrecipient for costs incurred after the end of the subaward period of performance. Cause: Council did not follow its process to execute a no-cost extension of the subaward period of performance before approving reimbursement for costs incurred by the subrecipient during the prime award’s period of performance. Effect: The lack of adherence to the established internal control policies and procedures can lead to noncompliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the provisions of grant agreements which could ultimately lead to disallowed costs for the major federal program. Questioned Costs: There are questioned costs totaling $5,635. Context: This is a condition based on testing of Council’s compliance with specified requirements. The prevalence of the finding is detailed in the condition section above. The samples were selected using a non-statistical method. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: BDO recommends that Council follows its processes to ensure only subrecipient costs incurred during an active subgrant period of performance are reimbursed. Views of Responsible Officials: Council management agrees with the finding and recommendations set forth within and will work with program management teams to provide guidance and training related to subrecipient organization period of performance. Refer to management’s corrective action plan for additional information.
FINDING 2024-002 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): FY2023, FY2024, FY23/FY24 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-003. Condition and Context An effective internal control system, which would include segregation of duties, was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 SOUTH VERMILLION COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 $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 of $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchases 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. There were no internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the small purchase requirements. The School Corporation obtained quotes for the two vendors that qualified for the small purchase threshold, but there was no review or oversight process performed. Suspension and Debarment There were no internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the suspension and debarment requirements. The School Corporation did not verify that the two vendors were not suspended or debarred. They did not have a contract with the vendors that included the suspension and debarment clause, did not collect a certification from the vendors, and did not check the Sam.gov website to verify that vendors were not suspended or debarred. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were 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(i) states: "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." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 SOUTH VERMILLION COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (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.gov 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 developed or implemented a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. The School Corporation obtained quotes for the two vendors that qualified for the small purchase threshold, but there was not a review or oversight performed. The School Corporation was unaware of the requirement to provide documentation to show that a verification was done to determine that the two vendors were not suspended or debarred. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation could have used a vendor that charged more than the lowest quote for small purchases or could have entered into transaction with vendors that were excluded from participating in federal transactions. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 SOUTH VERMILLION COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 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 2024-002 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): FY2023, FY2024, FY23/FY24 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-003. Condition and Context An effective internal control system, which would include segregation of duties, was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 SOUTH VERMILLION COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 $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 of $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchases 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. There were no internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the small purchase requirements. The School Corporation obtained quotes for the two vendors that qualified for the small purchase threshold, but there was no review or oversight process performed. Suspension and Debarment There were no internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the suspension and debarment requirements. The School Corporation did not verify that the two vendors were not suspended or debarred. They did not have a contract with the vendors that included the suspension and debarment clause, did not collect a certification from the vendors, and did not check the Sam.gov website to verify that vendors were not suspended or debarred. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were 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(i) states: "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." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 SOUTH VERMILLION COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (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.gov 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 developed or implemented a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. The School Corporation obtained quotes for the two vendors that qualified for the small purchase threshold, but there was not a review or oversight performed. The School Corporation was unaware of the requirement to provide documentation to show that a verification was done to determine that the two vendors were not suspended or debarred. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation could have used a vendor that charged more than the lowest quote for small purchases or could have entered into transaction with vendors that were excluded from participating in federal transactions. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 SOUTH VERMILLION COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 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 2024-002 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): FY2023, FY2024, FY23/FY24 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-003. Condition and Context An effective internal control system, which would include segregation of duties, was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 SOUTH VERMILLION COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 $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 of $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchases 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. There were no internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the small purchase requirements. The School Corporation obtained quotes for the two vendors that qualified for the small purchase threshold, but there was no review or oversight process performed. Suspension and Debarment There were no internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the suspension and debarment requirements. The School Corporation did not verify that the two vendors were not suspended or debarred. They did not have a contract with the vendors that included the suspension and debarment clause, did not collect a certification from the vendors, and did not check the Sam.gov website to verify that vendors were not suspended or debarred. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were 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(i) states: "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." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 SOUTH VERMILLION COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (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.gov 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 developed or implemented a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. The School Corporation obtained quotes for the two vendors that qualified for the small purchase threshold, but there was not a review or oversight performed. The School Corporation was unaware of the requirement to provide documentation to show that a verification was done to determine that the two vendors were not suspended or debarred. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation could have used a vendor that charged more than the lowest quote for small purchases or could have entered into transaction with vendors that were excluded from participating in federal transactions. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 SOUTH VERMILLION COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 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 2024-002 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): FY2023, FY2024, FY23/FY24 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-003. Condition and Context An effective internal control system, which would include segregation of duties, was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 SOUTH VERMILLION COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 $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 of $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchases 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. There were no internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the small purchase requirements. The School Corporation obtained quotes for the two vendors that qualified for the small purchase threshold, but there was no review or oversight process performed. Suspension and Debarment There were no internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the suspension and debarment requirements. The School Corporation did not verify that the two vendors were not suspended or debarred. They did not have a contract with the vendors that included the suspension and debarment clause, did not collect a certification from the vendors, and did not check the Sam.gov website to verify that vendors were not suspended or debarred. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were 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(i) states: "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." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 SOUTH VERMILLION COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (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.gov 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 developed or implemented a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. The School Corporation obtained quotes for the two vendors that qualified for the small purchase threshold, but there was not a review or oversight performed. The School Corporation was unaware of the requirement to provide documentation to show that a verification was done to determine that the two vendors were not suspended or debarred. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation could have used a vendor that charged more than the lowest quote for small purchases or could have entered into transaction with vendors that were excluded from participating in federal transactions. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 SOUTH VERMILLION COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 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 2024-002 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): FY2023, FY2024, FY23/FY24 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-003. Condition and Context An effective internal control system, which would include segregation of duties, was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 SOUTH VERMILLION COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 $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 of $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchases 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. There were no internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the small purchase requirements. The School Corporation obtained quotes for the two vendors that qualified for the small purchase threshold, but there was no review or oversight process performed. Suspension and Debarment There were no internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the suspension and debarment requirements. The School Corporation did not verify that the two vendors were not suspended or debarred. They did not have a contract with the vendors that included the suspension and debarment clause, did not collect a certification from the vendors, and did not check the Sam.gov website to verify that vendors were not suspended or debarred. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were 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(i) states: "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." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 SOUTH VERMILLION COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (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.gov 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 developed or implemented a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. The School Corporation obtained quotes for the two vendors that qualified for the small purchase threshold, but there was not a review or oversight performed. The School Corporation was unaware of the requirement to provide documentation to show that a verification was done to determine that the two vendors were not suspended or debarred. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation could have used a vendor that charged more than the lowest quote for small purchases or could have entered into transaction with vendors that were excluded from participating in federal transactions. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 SOUTH VERMILLION COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 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 2024-002 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): FY2023, FY2024, FY23/FY24 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2022-003. Condition and Context An effective internal control system, which would include segregation of duties, was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 SOUTH VERMILLION COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 $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 of $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchases 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. There were no internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the small purchase requirements. The School Corporation obtained quotes for the two vendors that qualified for the small purchase threshold, but there was no review or oversight process performed. Suspension and Debarment There were no internal controls in place to ensure that the School Corporation complied with the suspension and debarment requirements. The School Corporation did not verify that the two vendors were not suspended or debarred. They did not have a contract with the vendors that included the suspension and debarment clause, did not collect a certification from the vendors, and did not check the Sam.gov website to verify that vendors were not suspended or debarred. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were 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(i) states: "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." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 SOUTH VERMILLION COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (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.gov 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 developed or implemented a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. The School Corporation obtained quotes for the two vendors that qualified for the small purchase threshold, but there was not a review or oversight performed. The School Corporation was unaware of the requirement to provide documentation to show that a verification was done to determine that the two vendors were not suspended or debarred. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation could have used a vendor that charged more than the lowest quote for small purchases or could have entered into transaction with vendors that were excluded from participating in federal transactions. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 SOUTH VERMILLION COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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 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.
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: 84.027X; 84.173X Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-042-ARP; 22619-042-ARP Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.313(d) states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over 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 200.320 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. . . .” (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. . . .” (2) Proposals. A procurement method in which either a fixed price or cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: “When you enter into a covered transaction with another person as 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.” Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the procurement and the suspension and debarment requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the requirements for the simplified acquisition threshold and for small purchases were met for each applicable procured good or service or to ensure that vendors were not suspended or debarred prior to entering into a covered transaction. When the value of the procurement for property or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), or a lower threshold established by a nonfederal entity, formal procurement methods are required. The SAT is typically set at $250,000. However, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold. Therefore, the SAT threshold is set at $150,000. Formal procurement methods require adherence to documented procedures and formal methods such as sealed bids or proposals. When the purchase value exceeds the micro-purchase threshold but is less than the simplified acquisition threshold, a small purchase occurs. Small purchases require documented full and open competition or a documented rationale for limited competition. For fiscal year 2023, the Cooperative had one vendor, with disbursements totaling $379,313, which exceeded the SAT threshold of $150,000. The Cooperative did not obtain sealed bids or competitive proposals nor was there documentation detailing the history of the procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. For fiscal year 2023, the Cooperative had one vendor with disbursements in the amount of $55,374, which were less than the SAT threshold of $150,000, but exceeded the $50,000 micro-purchase threshold and was selected for testing. The Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of the procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. For fiscal year 2024, three vendors with disbursements totaling $175,125, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $50,000 micro-purchase threshold and were selected for testing. The Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes for two of the three vendors and there was no documentation detailing the history of the procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. 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 SAM exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. Upon inquiry of the Cooperative 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 there were not any documented controls or procedures. Nine covered transactions were identified. The covered transactions, totaling $803,836, were selected for testing. The Cooperative did not verify the suspension and debarment status of the tested vendors prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic throughout the audit period. Cause: The Cooperative noted that ARP portion of the Special Education grant was new for the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 school years. The ARP funding gave opportunity for types of expenditures that do not typically get expensed using Special Education funding. The transactions noted within the Condition and Context were from the ARP portion of the grant, which provided property or services that exceeded the micro-purchase threshold. Management of the Cooperative was unaware of the procurement requirements when property or services exceed the micro-purchase threshold. In addition, management of the Cooperative was unaware of the Suspension and Debarment requirements when a covered transaction is expected to equal or exceed $25,000. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. Without following the required methods for procurement, the Cooperative could be overpaying for services. Unverified vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 could be suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the reduction of future federal funding to the Cooperative. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Northeast Indiana Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the Cooperative’s management design and implement a system of internal controls related to procurement and suspension and debarment procedures to ensure procurement requirements are met and to ensure entities are neither suspended nor debarred, or otherwise excluded or disqualified prior to entering into any covered transactions. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
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: 84.027X; 84.173X Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-042-ARP; 22619-042-ARP Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.313(d) states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over 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 200.320 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. . . .” (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. . . .” (2) Proposals. A procurement method in which either a fixed price or cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: “When you enter into a covered transaction with another person as 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.” Condition: The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with the procurement and the suspension and debarment requirements. The Cooperative did not have adequate procedures in place to ensure that the requirements for the simplified acquisition threshold and for small purchases were met for each applicable procured good or service or to ensure that vendors were not suspended or debarred prior to entering into a covered transaction. When the value of the procurement for property or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), or a lower threshold established by a nonfederal entity, formal procurement methods are required. The SAT is typically set at $250,000. However, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold. Therefore, the SAT threshold is set at $150,000. Formal procurement methods require adherence to documented procedures and formal methods such as sealed bids or proposals. When the purchase value exceeds the micro-purchase threshold but is less than the simplified acquisition threshold, a small purchase occurs. Small purchases require documented full and open competition or a documented rationale for limited competition. For fiscal year 2023, the Cooperative had one vendor, with disbursements totaling $379,313, which exceeded the SAT threshold of $150,000. The Cooperative did not obtain sealed bids or competitive proposals nor was there documentation detailing the history of the procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. For fiscal year 2023, the Cooperative had one vendor with disbursements in the amount of $55,374, which were less than the SAT threshold of $150,000, but exceeded the $50,000 micro-purchase threshold and was selected for testing. The Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of the procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. For fiscal year 2024, three vendors with disbursements totaling $175,125, were identified as being less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeding the $50,000 micro-purchase threshold and were selected for testing. The Cooperative did not obtain price or rate quotes for two of the three vendors and there was no documentation detailing the history of the procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. 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 SAM exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. Upon inquiry of the Cooperative 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 there were not any documented controls or procedures. Nine covered transactions were identified. The covered transactions, totaling $803,836, were selected for testing. The Cooperative did not verify the suspension and debarment status of the tested vendors prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic throughout the audit period. Cause: The Cooperative noted that ARP portion of the Special Education grant was new for the 2022-2023 and 2023-2024 school years. The ARP funding gave opportunity for types of expenditures that do not typically get expensed using Special Education funding. The transactions noted within the Condition and Context were from the ARP portion of the grant, which provided property or services that exceeded the micro-purchase threshold. Management of the Cooperative was unaware of the procurement requirements when property or services exceed the micro-purchase threshold. In addition, management of the Cooperative was unaware of the Suspension and Debarment requirements when a covered transaction is expected to equal or exceed $25,000. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. Without following the required methods for procurement, the Cooperative could be overpaying for services. Unverified vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 could be suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the reduction of future federal funding to the Cooperative. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: The School Corporation is a member of the Northeast Indiana Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal years 2022-2023 and 2023-2024, the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the Cooperative’s management design and implement a system of internal controls related to procurement and suspension and debarment procedures to ensure procurement requirements are met and to ensure entities are neither suspended nor debarred, or otherwise excluded or disqualified prior to entering into any covered transactions. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-004 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-053-PN01, 22611-053-ARP Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 LA PORTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the South La Porte County Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). The Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. Procurement - Small Purchase When the value of the procurement for property or services are within the small purchase threshold, or a lower threshold established by a nonfederal entity, quotes and a contract are required. The small purchase threshold is between $10,000 and $150,000; however, the threshold between $10,000 and $50,000 require quotes from an adequate number of qualified sources. Indiana Code 5-22-8 has more restrictive requirements for the small purchase threshold between $50,000 and $150,000, which require three quotes and a contract to be awarded. In fiscal year 2023, the Cooperative had five vendors which fell within the small purchase threshold and all five vendors were tested. The Cooperative did not obtain quotes or competitive proposals, nor was a circumstance met that would have allowed for a noncompetitive procurement for the purchases. The total amount spent with all five vendors was $292,806. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to 2023. 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 SAM exclusions, collecting a certification from that person, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Six vendors paid from the grant funds were identified as being covered transactions during the audit period. Three vendors each fiscal year provided goods or services which equaled or exceeded $25,000 and were selected for testing. The total amount spent on covered transactions was $266,063 and $142,639 for 2023 and 2024, respectively. For all six vendors, the Cooperative did not verify the vendors' suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 22611-053-PN01 and 22611-053-ARP grant awards. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 LA PORTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (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 200.320 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.gov Exclusions, or (b) Collecting a certification from that person, or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause The Cooperative noted they were unaware of the procurement requirements of expenditures within the Small Purchase Threshold and for suspension and debarment. They stated they have used the same vendors to provide professional services for several years but only recently started using federal grant award funds for the services. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 25 LA PORTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the Cooperative cannot ensure the vendors paid with federal award funds are procured using the required methods and are not suspended or debarred from receiving federal funds. Without following the required methods for procurement and suspension and debarment, the Cooperative could be overpaying for services or could be paying vendors who are precluded from receiving federal funds. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation Management of the Cooperative should develop written policies and procedures which would require that appropriate procurement methods are used for vendors that are within the Small Purchase Threshold and to ensure vendors are not suspended or debarred. Appropriate documentation should be maintained to ensure compliance with procurement and suspension and debarment. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-004 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-053-PN01, 22611-053-ARP Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 LA PORTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the South La Porte County Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). The Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. Procurement - Small Purchase When the value of the procurement for property or services are within the small purchase threshold, or a lower threshold established by a nonfederal entity, quotes and a contract are required. The small purchase threshold is between $10,000 and $150,000; however, the threshold between $10,000 and $50,000 require quotes from an adequate number of qualified sources. Indiana Code 5-22-8 has more restrictive requirements for the small purchase threshold between $50,000 and $150,000, which require three quotes and a contract to be awarded. In fiscal year 2023, the Cooperative had five vendors which fell within the small purchase threshold and all five vendors were tested. The Cooperative did not obtain quotes or competitive proposals, nor was a circumstance met that would have allowed for a noncompetitive procurement for the purchases. The total amount spent with all five vendors was $292,806. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to 2023. 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 SAM exclusions, collecting a certification from that person, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Six vendors paid from the grant funds were identified as being covered transactions during the audit period. Three vendors each fiscal year provided goods or services which equaled or exceeded $25,000 and were selected for testing. The total amount spent on covered transactions was $266,063 and $142,639 for 2023 and 2024, respectively. For all six vendors, the Cooperative did not verify the vendors' suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 22611-053-PN01 and 22611-053-ARP grant awards. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 LA PORTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (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 200.320 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.gov Exclusions, or (b) Collecting a certification from that person, or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause The Cooperative noted they were unaware of the procurement requirements of expenditures within the Small Purchase Threshold and for suspension and debarment. They stated they have used the same vendors to provide professional services for several years but only recently started using federal grant award funds for the services. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 25 LA PORTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the Cooperative cannot ensure the vendors paid with federal award funds are procured using the required methods and are not suspended or debarred from receiving federal funds. Without following the required methods for procurement and suspension and debarment, the Cooperative could be overpaying for services or could be paying vendors who are precluded from receiving federal funds. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation Management of the Cooperative should develop written policies and procedures which would require that appropriate procurement methods are used for vendors that are within the Small Purchase Threshold and to ensure vendors are not suspended or debarred. Appropriate documentation should be maintained to ensure compliance with procurement and suspension and debarment. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-004 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-053-PN01, 22611-053-ARP Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 LA PORTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the South La Porte County Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). The Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. Procurement - Small Purchase When the value of the procurement for property or services are within the small purchase threshold, or a lower threshold established by a nonfederal entity, quotes and a contract are required. The small purchase threshold is between $10,000 and $150,000; however, the threshold between $10,000 and $50,000 require quotes from an adequate number of qualified sources. Indiana Code 5-22-8 has more restrictive requirements for the small purchase threshold between $50,000 and $150,000, which require three quotes and a contract to be awarded. In fiscal year 2023, the Cooperative had five vendors which fell within the small purchase threshold and all five vendors were tested. The Cooperative did not obtain quotes or competitive proposals, nor was a circumstance met that would have allowed for a noncompetitive procurement for the purchases. The total amount spent with all five vendors was $292,806. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to 2023. 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 SAM exclusions, collecting a certification from that person, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Six vendors paid from the grant funds were identified as being covered transactions during the audit period. Three vendors each fiscal year provided goods or services which equaled or exceeded $25,000 and were selected for testing. The total amount spent on covered transactions was $266,063 and $142,639 for 2023 and 2024, respectively. For all six vendors, the Cooperative did not verify the vendors' suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 22611-053-PN01 and 22611-053-ARP grant awards. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 LA PORTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (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 200.320 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.gov Exclusions, or (b) Collecting a certification from that person, or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause The Cooperative noted they were unaware of the procurement requirements of expenditures within the Small Purchase Threshold and for suspension and debarment. They stated they have used the same vendors to provide professional services for several years but only recently started using federal grant award funds for the services. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 25 LA PORTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the Cooperative cannot ensure the vendors paid with federal award funds are procured using the required methods and are not suspended or debarred from receiving federal funds. Without following the required methods for procurement and suspension and debarment, the Cooperative could be overpaying for services or could be paying vendors who are precluded from receiving federal funds. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation Management of the Cooperative should develop written policies and procedures which would require that appropriate procurement methods are used for vendors that are within the Small Purchase Threshold and to ensure vendors are not suspended or debarred. Appropriate documentation should be maintained to ensure compliance with procurement and suspension and debarment. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-004 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-053-PN01, 22611-053-ARP Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 LA PORTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the South La Porte County Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). The Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education (IDOE) and each member school, the School Corporation was responsible for ensuring and providing oversight of the Cooperative. Procurement - Small Purchase When the value of the procurement for property or services are within the small purchase threshold, or a lower threshold established by a nonfederal entity, quotes and a contract are required. The small purchase threshold is between $10,000 and $150,000; however, the threshold between $10,000 and $50,000 require quotes from an adequate number of qualified sources. Indiana Code 5-22-8 has more restrictive requirements for the small purchase threshold between $50,000 and $150,000, which require three quotes and a contract to be awarded. In fiscal year 2023, the Cooperative had five vendors which fell within the small purchase threshold and all five vendors were tested. The Cooperative did not obtain quotes or competitive proposals, nor was a circumstance met that would have allowed for a noncompetitive procurement for the purchases. The total amount spent with all five vendors was $292,806. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to 2023. 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 SAM exclusions, collecting a certification from that person, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Six vendors paid from the grant funds were identified as being covered transactions during the audit period. Three vendors each fiscal year provided goods or services which equaled or exceeded $25,000 and were selected for testing. The total amount spent on covered transactions was $266,063 and $142,639 for 2023 and 2024, respectively. For all six vendors, the Cooperative did not verify the vendors' suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to the 22611-053-PN01 and 22611-053-ARP grant awards. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 LA PORTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (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 200.320 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.gov Exclusions, or (b) Collecting a certification from that person, or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause The Cooperative noted they were unaware of the procurement requirements of expenditures within the Small Purchase Threshold and for suspension and debarment. They stated they have used the same vendors to provide professional services for several years but only recently started using federal grant award funds for the services. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 25 LA PORTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the Cooperative cannot ensure the vendors paid with federal award funds are procured using the required methods and are not suspended or debarred from receiving federal funds. Without following the required methods for procurement and suspension and debarment, the Cooperative could be overpaying for services or could be paying vendors who are precluded from receiving federal funds. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation Management of the Cooperative should develop written policies and procedures which would require that appropriate procurement methods are used for vendors that are within the Small Purchase Threshold and to ensure vendors are not suspended or debarred. Appropriate documentation should be maintained to ensure compliance with procurement and suspension and debarment. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-002 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years(or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-043-ARP, 23611-043-PN01, 24611-043-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2023-2024, the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education 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. When the value of the procurement for property or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), or a lower threshold established by a nonfederal entity, formal procurement methods are required. The SAT is typically set at $250,000; however, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold, and, therefore, the SAT threshold is set at $150,000. Formal procurement methods require adherence to documented procedures and formal methods such as sealed bids or proposals. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with procurement requirements. The Cooperative did not have procedures in place to ensure compliance with procurements in excess of the SAT threshold. During 2023-2024, the Cooperative had three vendors which exceeded the SAT and all three vendors were tested. The Cooperative did not obtain sealed bids or competitive proposals, nor was a circumstance met that would have allowed for a noncompetitive procurement for the purchases. The total dollar amount spent with all three vendors was $1,417,349. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 HANOVER COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues limited to 2023-2024. 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 200.320 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: . . . (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. . . . (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. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 HANOVER COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause The Cooperative noted they were unaware of the procurement requirements of expenditures exceeding the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. They stated they have used the same vendors to provide professional services for several years but only recently started using federal grant award funds for the services. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation cannot ensure the vendors paid with federal award funds by the Cooperative are procured using the required methods. Without following the required methods for procurement, the Cooperative could be overpaying for services. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation Management of the School Corporation should develop written policies and procedures which would require that appropriate procurement methods are used by the Cooperative for vendors that exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. Appropriate documentation should be maintained to ensure the procurement methods are being followed and compliance with procurement methods are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-002 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years(or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-043-ARP, 23611-043-PN01, 24611-043-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2023-2024, the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education 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. When the value of the procurement for property or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), or a lower threshold established by a nonfederal entity, formal procurement methods are required. The SAT is typically set at $250,000; however, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold, and, therefore, the SAT threshold is set at $150,000. Formal procurement methods require adherence to documented procedures and formal methods such as sealed bids or proposals. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with procurement requirements. The Cooperative did not have procedures in place to ensure compliance with procurements in excess of the SAT threshold. During 2023-2024, the Cooperative had three vendors which exceeded the SAT and all three vendors were tested. The Cooperative did not obtain sealed bids or competitive proposals, nor was a circumstance met that would have allowed for a noncompetitive procurement for the purchases. The total dollar amount spent with all three vendors was $1,417,349. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 HANOVER COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues limited to 2023-2024. 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 200.320 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: . . . (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. . . . (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. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 HANOVER COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause The Cooperative noted they were unaware of the procurement requirements of expenditures exceeding the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. They stated they have used the same vendors to provide professional services for several years but only recently started using federal grant award funds for the services. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation cannot ensure the vendors paid with federal award funds by the Cooperative are procured using the required methods. Without following the required methods for procurement, the Cooperative could be overpaying for services. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation Management of the School Corporation should develop written policies and procedures which would require that appropriate procurement methods are used by the Cooperative for vendors that exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. Appropriate documentation should be maintained to ensure the procurement methods are being followed and compliance with procurement methods are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-002 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years(or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-043-ARP, 23611-043-PN01, 24611-043-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2023-2024, the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education 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. When the value of the procurement for property or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), or a lower threshold established by a nonfederal entity, formal procurement methods are required. The SAT is typically set at $250,000; however, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold, and, therefore, the SAT threshold is set at $150,000. Formal procurement methods require adherence to documented procedures and formal methods such as sealed bids or proposals. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with procurement requirements. The Cooperative did not have procedures in place to ensure compliance with procurements in excess of the SAT threshold. During 2023-2024, the Cooperative had three vendors which exceeded the SAT and all three vendors were tested. The Cooperative did not obtain sealed bids or competitive proposals, nor was a circumstance met that would have allowed for a noncompetitive procurement for the purchases. The total dollar amount spent with all three vendors was $1,417,349. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 HANOVER COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues limited to 2023-2024. 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 200.320 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: . . . (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. . . . (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. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 HANOVER COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause The Cooperative noted they were unaware of the procurement requirements of expenditures exceeding the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. They stated they have used the same vendors to provide professional services for several years but only recently started using federal grant award funds for the services. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation cannot ensure the vendors paid with federal award funds by the Cooperative are procured using the required methods. Without following the required methods for procurement, the Cooperative could be overpaying for services. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation Management of the School Corporation should develop written policies and procedures which would require that appropriate procurement methods are used by the Cooperative for vendors that exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. Appropriate documentation should be maintained to ensure the procurement methods are being followed and compliance with procurement methods are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-002 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States Assistance Listings Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years(or Other Identifying Numbers): 22611-043-ARP, 23611-043-PN01, 24611-043-PN01 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation is a member of the Northwest Indiana Special Education Cooperative (Cooperative). During fiscal year 2023-2024, the Cooperative operated the special education program and spent the federal money on behalf of all its members. As the grant agreement was between the Indiana Department of Education 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. When the value of the procurement for property or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), or a lower threshold established by a nonfederal entity, formal procurement methods are required. The SAT is typically set at $250,000; however, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold, and, therefore, the SAT threshold is set at $150,000. Formal procurement methods require adherence to documented procedures and formal methods such as sealed bids or proposals. The School Corporation did not have internal controls in place to ensure that the Cooperative complied with procurement requirements. The Cooperative did not have procedures in place to ensure compliance with procurements in excess of the SAT threshold. During 2023-2024, the Cooperative had three vendors which exceeded the SAT and all three vendors were tested. The Cooperative did not obtain sealed bids or competitive proposals, nor was a circumstance met that would have allowed for a noncompetitive procurement for the purchases. The total dollar amount spent with all three vendors was $1,417,349. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 HANOVER COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues limited to 2023-2024. 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 200.320 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: . . . (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. . . . (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. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 HANOVER COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause The Cooperative noted they were unaware of the procurement requirements of expenditures exceeding the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. They stated they have used the same vendors to provide professional services for several years but only recently started using federal grant award funds for the services. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the School Corporation cannot ensure the vendors paid with federal award funds by the Cooperative are procured using the required methods. Without following the required methods for procurement, the Cooperative could be overpaying for services. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation Management of the School Corporation should develop written policies and procedures which would require that appropriate procurement methods are used by the Cooperative for vendors that exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. Appropriate documentation should be maintained to ensure the procurement methods are being followed and compliance with procurement methods are being followed. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-003 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 2023, FY 2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context An effective internal control system, which would include segregation of duties, was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and 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 nonfederal 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 the audit period, the School Corporation had two vendors, totaling $900,414, that were considered simplified acquisition purchases. Both vendors were selected for testing. For one vendor in both fiscal years, the School Corporation procured more than $150,000 in services without providing bid tabulations or evaluation criteria for awarding the bid and without obtaining a contract agreement. For the other vendor, services were properly procured; however, the School Corporation did not have a contract with this vendor. During the audit period, the School Corporation had nine vendors, totaling $324,810, that were considered small purchases. Two vendors were selected for testing. For one vendor during the fiscal year 2022-2023, the School Corporation procured $12,830 in services and could not provide evidence of open competition or quotes for the purchase. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 SOUTHWEST DUBOIS COUNTY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) During the audit period, the School Corporation had 122 transactions, totaling $106,328, that were considered micro-purchases. Eighteen transactions were selected for testing. Three of the transactions sampled did not include the approval of the Food Service Director per the internal control process. The internal control was not properly implemented. 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. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation, in order to review the procedures in place 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 Food Service Director verified vendors were not suspended or debarred by reviewing the SAMs exclusions. The School Corporation had three vendors in both fiscal years, and one vendor in 2022-2023 had incurred more than $25,000 in covered transactions, totaling $1,150,939. The School Corporation did not maintain documentation to show that the vendor was verified for suspension and debarment status prior to payment. 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. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 SOUTHWEST DUBOIS COUNTY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (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: (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. . . . (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; INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 SOUTHWEST DUBOIS COUNTY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (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 INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 SOUTHWEST DUBOIS COUNTY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (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. . . ." Indiana Code 5-22-8-3 states in part: "(a) This section applies only if the purchasing agency expects the purchase to be: (1) at least fifty thousand ($50,000); and (2) not more than one fifty thousand ($150,000). (b) A purchasing agent may purchase supplies under this section by inviting quotes from at least three (3) persons known to deal in the lines or classes of supplies to be purchased. . . . (d) If the purchasing agency receives a satisfactory quote, the purchasing agent shall award a contract to the lowest responsible and responsive offeror for each line or class of supplies required. . . ." 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.gov Exclusions, or (b) Collecting a certification from that person, or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause There was no documented evidence of the internal control process. The School Corporation and the Food Service Director had not developed an adequate system of internal controls that would ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. According to the Food Service Director and the Chief Financial Officer, due to the change of the Food Service Director, the School Corporation did not have the proper safeguards in place to ensure that the documentation was properly maintained. As a result, the Chief Financial Officer and the Food Service Director were unable to locate the documentation for each procurement method. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 SOUTHWEST DUBOIS COUNTY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect The School Corporation was not able to provide the documentation that they followed the proper procurement procedures or that they verified vendors were not suspended or debarred. By not following proper procurement procedures, the School Corporation may not be receiving the most competitive pricing. If the School Corporation does not verify that vendors are not suspended or debarred, the School Corporation may be purchasing from vendors that are not eligible to receive federal funds. Without a proper system of internal controls in place that operated effectively, material noncompliance remained undetected. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommend 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. Documentation of all procurement and suspension and debarment activities should be maintained. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-003 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 2023, FY 2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context An effective internal control system, which would include segregation of duties, was not in place at the School Corporation in order to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and 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 nonfederal 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 the audit period, the School Corporation had two vendors, totaling $900,414, that were considered simplified acquisition purchases. Both vendors were selected for testing. For one vendor in both fiscal years, the School Corporation procured more than $150,000 in services without providing bid tabulations or evaluation criteria for awarding the bid and without obtaining a contract agreement. For the other vendor, services were properly procured; however, the School Corporation did not have a contract with this vendor. During the audit period, the School Corporation had nine vendors, totaling $324,810, that were considered small purchases. Two vendors were selected for testing. For one vendor during the fiscal year 2022-2023, the School Corporation procured $12,830 in services and could not provide evidence of open competition or quotes for the purchase. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 SOUTHWEST DUBOIS COUNTY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) During the audit period, the School Corporation had 122 transactions, totaling $106,328, that were considered micro-purchases. Eighteen transactions were selected for testing. Three of the transactions sampled did not include the approval of the Food Service Director per the internal control process. The internal control was not properly implemented. 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. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation, in order to review the procedures in place 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 Food Service Director verified vendors were not suspended or debarred by reviewing the SAMs exclusions. The School Corporation had three vendors in both fiscal years, and one vendor in 2022-2023 had incurred more than $25,000 in covered transactions, totaling $1,150,939. The School Corporation did not maintain documentation to show that the vendor was verified for suspension and debarment status prior to payment. 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. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 SOUTHWEST DUBOIS COUNTY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (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: (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. . . . (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; INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 SOUTHWEST DUBOIS COUNTY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (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 INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 SOUTHWEST DUBOIS COUNTY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (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. . . ." Indiana Code 5-22-8-3 states in part: "(a) This section applies only if the purchasing agency expects the purchase to be: (1) at least fifty thousand ($50,000); and (2) not more than one fifty thousand ($150,000). (b) A purchasing agent may purchase supplies under this section by inviting quotes from at least three (3) persons known to deal in the lines or classes of supplies to be purchased. . . . (d) If the purchasing agency receives a satisfactory quote, the purchasing agent shall award a contract to the lowest responsible and responsive offeror for each line or class of supplies required. . . ." 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.gov Exclusions, or (b) Collecting a certification from that person, or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause There was no documented evidence of the internal control process. The School Corporation and the Food Service Director had not developed an adequate system of internal controls that would ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. According to the Food Service Director and the Chief Financial Officer, due to the change of the Food Service Director, the School Corporation did not have the proper safeguards in place to ensure that the documentation was properly maintained. As a result, the Chief Financial Officer and the Food Service Director were unable to locate the documentation for each procurement method. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 SOUTHWEST DUBOIS COUNTY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect The School Corporation was not able to provide the documentation that they followed the proper procurement procedures or that they verified vendors were not suspended or debarred. By not following proper procurement procedures, the School Corporation may not be receiving the most competitive pricing. If the School Corporation does not verify that vendors are not suspended or debarred, the School Corporation may be purchasing from vendors that are not eligible to receive federal funds. Without a proper system of internal controls in place that operated effectively, material noncompliance remained undetected. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommend 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. Documentation of all procurement and suspension and debarment activities should be maintained. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.