The City is required to comply with the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (Transparency Act or FFATA) for direct grants. The Transparency Act was created to empower Americans with the ability to hold the government accountable for each spending decision and, as a result, to reduce wasteful spending by the government. The Transparency Act requires the federal government to make certain information on federal awards available to the public. In accordance with the Transparency Act, the City is required to report information about subgrants, or subawards, given to other governments or to nonprofit organizations, also referred to as subrecipients. Federal regulations [2 CFR 200.1] define a subaward as an award provided by a pass-through entity, in this case the City, to an entity to carry out part of a federal grant award received by the pass-through entity. A subrecipient is defined in federal regulations [2 CFR 200.1] as “an entity, usually but not limited to non-Federal entities, that receives a subaward from a pass-through entity to carry out part of a federal award; but does not include an individual that is a beneficiary of such award. A subrecipient may also be a recipient of other Federal awards directly from a federal awarding agency.” The City is required to submit FFATA information through the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS). Once the City submits a report to FSRS, the public can view information from the report, including the subrecipient’s name, subaward identification number, subaward obligation/action date, subaward amount, federal awarding agency and subagency, the City’s name, and the Citty’s grant award identification number. The City omitted the FFATA reports for CDBG. he City did not have a control over FFATA reporting. Without sufficient review and monitoring controls, the FFATA reporting required for the grant was not performed by the City. The City should implement internal controls for CDBG and all direct grants by developing policies and procedures to ensure that it complies with requirements under the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act. These procedures should include requirements to maintain supporting documentation, including evidence of timely submission and subaward documentation for awards made to subrecipients, as required. The City agrees with the finding and has put together a correction action plan for the finding. See corrective action plan included in this report.
2024-010 Period of Performance Assistance Listing No.: 14.267 Continuum of Care Program Condition: The Organization was unable to demonstrate consistent controls over the period of performance requirement. Criteria: The requirements for the period of performance are contained in 2 CFR section 200.1 Definitions for “budget period,” “financial obligations,” “period of performance,” 2 CFR section 200.308 (revision of budget and program plans), 2 CFR section 200.309 (modifications to period of performance), 2 CFR section 200.344 (closeout), program legislation, federal awarding agency regulations; and the terms and conditions of the award. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs. Cause: The Organization did not have good controls on ensuring the period of performance requirement was met due to staff turn over. Effect: The Organization could have incurred grant expenditures outside the grant period. Perspective: Two of forty items selected for testing did not have documentation of the control over compliance with the period of performance requirement. Repeat Finding: This is a repeat finding. See finding 2023-014. Based on timing of prior year audit the Organization did not have time to fully correct the issue. Recommendation: In order to prevent future occurences of this deficiency, RBT recommends that management expand controls to ensure that they are able to demonstrate that all expenses meet their procurement policy. Auditee's Response: The Organization agrees with the finding. See attached corrective action plan.
Federal Grantor: U.S. Department of Treasury Pass-through Grantor: n/a Assistance Listing No.: 21.027 Program Title: COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award Year: 2024 Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Known Questioned Costs: n/a Criteria: Part 1 of the Compliance and Reporting Guidance, issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury, states that "SLFRF recipients that are pass-through entities as described under 2 CFR 200.1 are required to manage and monitor their recipients to ensure compliance with requirements of the SLFRF award pursuant to 2 CFR 200.332 regarding requirements for pass-through entities." Additionally, it is stated that pass-through entities are required to clearly identify to the subrecipient any and all compliance requirements for use of SLFRF funds. Condition: The County requires potential recipients of SLFRF funds to complete an application, which clearly identifies any and all compliance requirements for the use of the SLFRF funds. It also advises potential recipients to retain documentation of all uses of the funds and produce those documents to the County upon request. The County awarded SLFRF funds to two subrecipients. For one of the two subrecipients, the County did not ask the subrecipient to produce any documentation of the use of the funds and, therefore, did not perform their duty as a pass-through entity to manage and monitor their recipients to ensure compliance. Additionally, the County did not properly ascertain that any subrecipients expected to be audited as required by the Uniform Guidance, under subpart F, met this requirement (2 CFR 200.331(f)). This verification performed as part of the required monitoring under 2 CFR 200.331(d)(2) is required to ensure that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on deficiencies detected through audits. Cause: Oversight. Effect: The County, as a pass-through entity, is required to manage and monitor their recipients to ensure compliance with requirements of the SLFRF. By failing to manage and monitor one of their subrecipients, the County is in violation of their responsibility as a pass-through entity. Recommendation: We recommend that the County implement procedures for monitoring the spending of SLFRF funds by subrecipients during, and upon completion of their projects to ensure compliance. Management's Response: The County has created a filing system for recipients of SLFRF funds and a calendar set to send reminder notices to get receipts and other information from recipients. The reminders will be set in 3 month increments from the time funds are awarded to recipient. Implementation will begin January 1, 2026 with reminder notices set in calendar.
Finding Number: 2024-005 Assistance Listing Number and Title: AL # 14.251 Economic Development Initiative, Community Project Funding, and Miscellaneous Grants Federal Award Identification Number / Year: B-22-CP-OH-0726 Federal Agency: U.S. Department Of Housing And Urban Development Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Cost Principles Pass-Through Entity: N/A Repeat Finding from Prior Audit? No Prior Audit Finding Number: N/A Questioned Cost, Noncompliance, and Material Weakness 2 CFR 2400 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Housing And Urban Development for 2 CFR Part 200.414(f) which provides, in part, 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. 2 CFR Part 200.1 defines Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC) as 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. The County charged $300,000 in Administrative Indirect Costs for the Economic Development Initiative, Community Project Funding, and Miscellaneous Grants AL# 14.251 using a de minimis indirect cost rate. The $300,000 was calculated as 10% of total project costs of $3,000,000, which included $300,000 in indirect costs and $2,700,000 in direct costs. Further, the $2,700,000 of direct costs expended for the project were capital expenditures related to construction on the Devola Sewer Project. Therefore, the Modified Total Direct Cost (MTDC) on the Project was $0. As a result, the County should not have charged any indirect costs on the project using a de minimus rate. The County improperly charging Indirect Costs on the Project was due to confusion over how to calculate Modified Total Direct Costs. Therefore, we consider the amount of $300,000 to be a questioned cost. Failure to properly apply the de minimus indirect cost rate could lead to future questioned costs, reduced future federal funding, and the requirement to repay grant funds. Additional controls should be implemented to help ensure proper application of the de minimus indirect cost rate.
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
Finding 2024-003: Unsubstantiated Expense Program Name: Rail and Transit Security Grant Program Assistance Listing No. 97.075 Federal Award No.: EMW-2021-RA-00048 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Criteria The code of federal regulations – 2 CFR 200.405 Allocable costs requires that: A cost is allocable to a Federal award or other cost objective if the cost is assignable to that Federal award or other cost objective in accordance with the relative benefits received. This standard is met if the cost satisfies any of the following criteria: (1) Is incurred specifically for the Federal award; (2) Benefits both the Federal award and other work of the recipient or subrecipient and can be distributed in proportions that may be approximated using reasonable methods; or (3) Is necessary to the overall operation of the recipient or subrecipient and is assignable in part to the Federal award in accordance with these cost principles. The code of federal regulations – 2 CFR 200.1 Definitions defines Questioned costs as: Questioned cost means an amount, expended or received from a Federal award, that in the auditor’s judgment: (i) Is noncompliant or suspected noncompliant with Federal statutes, regulations, or the terms and conditions of the Federal award; The following exceptions to the criteria were observed during the performance of the audit procedures: 1. As part of our procedures relating to the testing requirement of Sections A and B (Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles), we identified a transaction erroneously included in the expenditure population that did not represent an expenditure allocable to Assistance Listing #97.075 incurred by Amtrak. The $24,200 amount included on the SEFA and in the underlying population related to a project funded by the Assistance Listing #20.315. Cause Amtrak’s control procedures in place as it relates to the review of manual journal entries related to reclassification of expenses between different projects under different funding sources were not operating effectively. The review process failed to identify the correct project to allocate the reclassification journal entry to. Effect Amtrak is in non-compliance with the related grant agreement. Questioned Costs This finding resulted in a total of $24,200 of questioned costs for Assistance Listing #97.075 – Rail and Transit Security Grant Program for Federal Award # EMW-2021-RA-00048. Context We selected 40 AB expenditure transactions, related to Assistance Listing #97.075, for internal control and compliance testing. One exception as described in the Condition section above was noted for matters 1-3 in the Criteria section above, indicating that internal controls were not functioning. Identification as a Repeat Finding Not a repeat finding. Recommendation We recommend that management strengthen the process to identify and review funding sources of underlying expenditures, that support the amounts of the reclassification journal entries. This could include reviewing approved budgets for the federal award in scope at a necessary level of detail to determine appropriateness of allocations in a timely manner. Views of Responsible Officials The invoice identified in this finding was initially charged to the incorrect project code, due to a manual process that was done incorrectly. The charges on the invoice should have been recorded to Amtrak’s annual grant, not the Rail and Transit Security Grant. The Company has moved the charges to the correct project code. The review and approval controls within the procurement process would have normally prevented the assignment of the incorrect project code, but in this situation, the project code was not set up at the time the services were rendered and an incorrect project code was used. This created the requirement for a manual journal entry to reclassify the expenses and at that time the incorrect code was selected. Amtrak will reinforce the need for proper project set up in advance and proper review of project charges once incurred.
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
2024-008–Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Period of Performance Criteria: Per 2CFR 200.1, the requirements of period of performance are defined as the time interval between the start and end date of a Federal award, which may include one or more budget periods. Each grant has a specified period of performance for the period which should be followed in accordance with the grant agreement. Condition: During our testing, D&T identified expenditures which were inappropriately classified to the wrong grant year for period of performance. Cause: The department did not perform a detailed review of the period of performance due to department turnover. Effect: Failure to ensure expenses are properly reviewed and coded to the correct period or grant could result in noncompliance with the award contract, which may result in the early termination of the grant award, non-reimbursement of grant funding, or cessation of future funding. Recommendation: Grant management should ensure that a detailed review of the period of performance is performed. Views of Responsible Officials: See Corrective Action Plan County Contact Person(s): Leah Barton, Interim Executive Director of Public Health
Finding 2024-003: Unsubstantiated Expense Program Name: Rail and Transit Security Grant Program Assistance Listing No. 97.075 Federal Award No.: EMW-2021-RA-00048 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security Criteria The code of federal regulations – 2 CFR 200.405 Allocable costs requires that: A cost is allocable to a Federal award or other cost objective if the cost is assignable to that Federal award or other cost objective in accordance with the relative benefits received. This standard is met if the cost satisfies any of the following criteria: (1) Is incurred specifically for the Federal award; (2) Benefits both the Federal award and other work of the recipient or subrecipient and can be distributed in proportions that may be approximated using reasonable methods; or (3) Is necessary to the overall operation of the recipient or subrecipient and is assignable in part to the Federal award in accordance with these cost principles. The code of federal regulations – 2 CFR 200.1 Definitions defines Questioned costs as: Questioned cost means an amount, expended or received from a Federal award, that in the auditor’s judgment: (i) Is noncompliant or suspected noncompliant with Federal statutes, regulations, or the terms and conditions of the Federal award; The following exceptions to the criteria were observed during the performance of the audit procedures: 1. As part of our procedures relating to the testing requirement of Sections A and B (Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles), we identified a transaction erroneously included in the expenditure population that did not represent an expenditure allocable to Assistance Listing #97.075 incurred by Amtrak. The $24,200 amount included on the SEFA and in the underlying population related to a project funded by the Assistance Listing #20.315. Cause Amtrak’s control procedures in place as it relates to the review of manual journal entries related to reclassification of expenses between different projects under different funding sources were not operating effectively. The review process failed to identify the correct project to allocate the reclassification journal entry to. Effect Amtrak is in non-compliance with the related grant agreement. Questioned Costs This finding resulted in a total of $24,200 of questioned costs for Assistance Listing #97.075 – Rail and Transit Security Grant Program for Federal Award # EMW-2021-RA-00048. Context We selected 40 AB expenditure transactions, related to Assistance Listing #97.075, for internal control and compliance testing. One exception as described in the Condition section above was noted for matters 1-3 in the Criteria section above, indicating that internal controls were not functioning. Identification as a Repeat Finding Not a repeat finding. Recommendation We recommend that management strengthen the process to identify and review funding sources of underlying expenditures, that support the amounts of the reclassification journal entries. This could include reviewing approved budgets for the federal award in scope at a necessary level of detail to determine appropriateness of allocations in a timely manner. Views of Responsible Officials The invoice identified in this finding was initially charged to the incorrect project code, due to a manual process that was done incorrectly. The charges on the invoice should have been recorded to Amtrak’s annual grant, not the Rail and Transit Security Grant. The Company has moved the charges to the correct project code. The review and approval controls within the procurement process would have normally prevented the assignment of the incorrect project code, but in this situation, the project code was not set up at the time the services were rendered and an incorrect project code was used. This created the requirement for a manual journal entry to reclassify the expenses and at that time the incorrect code was selected. Amtrak will reinforce the need for proper project set up in advance and proper review of project charges once incurred.
Finding No.: 2024-002 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Federal Communications Commission AL Program: COVID-19 21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Requirement: Procurement Questioned Costs: $150,676 Criteria: 2 CFR 200.1, defines State as any State of the United States, the District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, U.S. Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, and any agency or instrumentality thereof exclusive of local governments. 2 CFR 200.317 requires that when conducting procurement transactions under a Federal award, a State or Indian Tribe must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements with non-Federal funds. If such policies and procedures do not exist, States and Indian Tribes must follow the procurement standards in §§ 200.318 through 200.327. In addition to its own policies and procedures, a State or Indian Tribe must also comply with the following procurement standards: §§ 200.321, 200.322, 200.323, and 200.327. All other recipients and subrecipients, including subrecipients of a State or Indian Tribe, must follow the procurement standards in §§ 200.318 through 200.327. Effective July 1, 2019, GMHA Materials Management Policy and Procedure Manual (Policy No. 4.2) includes the following citations: All supplies, equipment and services purchased by Guam Memorial Hospital Authority (GMHA) shall be in accordance with the provisions of the Guam Procurement Law and GMHA Rules and Regulations as amended. Title 26 of the Guam Administrative Rules and Regulations (GARR) Chapter 16, sets forth as follows: §16308. Methods of Source Selection. Unless otherwise authorized by law, all hospital contracts shall be by competitive sealed bidding, pursuant to §16309 (Competitive Sealed Bidding) of these Regulations, except as provided in: (1) Section 16310 (Procurement from Non Profit Corporations); (2) Section 16311 (Small Purchases); (3) Section 16312 (Sole Source Procurement); (4) Section 16313 (Emergency Procurement); (5) Section 16314 (Competitive Selection Procedures for Services Specified in §16212); (6) Section 16507 (Architect-Engineer and Land Surveying Services); or (7) Section 16315 (Purchase of Drugs by Generic Names). §16309. Competitive Sealed Bidding. (a) Application. The provisions of this section apply to every procurement made by competitive sealed bidding, including multi-step bidding.§16309. Competitive Sealed Bidding. (a) Application. The provisions of this section apply to every procurement made by competitive sealed bidding, including multi-step bidding.§16311. Small Purchases. (1) Application. In accordance with 5 GCA §5213 (Small Purchases) of the GuamProcurement Act, this section is established for procurement of less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) for supplies or services and less than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for construction.(b) Authority to Make Small Purchases. (1) Amount. The Hospital Administrator may use this section if the procurement is to be less than five thousand dollars ($5,000) for supplies or services and less than fifteen thousand dollars ($15,000) for construction. If these methods are not used, the other methods of source selection provided in 5 GCA §5210 (Methods of Source Selection) of the Guam Procurement Act and these Regulations shall apply. Condition: For 2 (or 17%) of 12 items tested, GMHA’s method of procurement did not comply with local procurement regulations. GMHA is considered an instrumentality of the Government of Guam which is included in the definition of a State within 2 CFR 200. Accordingly, as there exists policies and procedures for procurement, such policies and procedures should have been used in conducting procurement transactions under a federal award in accordance with 2 CFR 200.317. Cause: GMHA did not use the same policies and procedures used for procurement of non-federal funds in accordance with 2 CFR 200.317. Effect: GMHA is in noncompliance with the applicable requirement. Recommendation: GMHA should adopt and implement the same policies and procedures for federal funds as those used for non-federal funds in accordance with 2 CFR 200.317. Views of Responsible Officials: Management disagrees with the finding. Management concluded that procurement thresholds is not an aspect of policies and procedures required under 2 CFR 200.317. Management concluded that higher thresholds set in 2 CFR 200.320 Simplified Acquisition Threshold as the applicable requirement. Please refer to GMHA’s views of responsible officials for their detailed response.
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.
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.