FINDING 2024-003 Subject: Drinking Water State Revolving Fund - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Environmental Protection Agency Federal Programs: Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Assistance Listing Number: 66.468 Federal Award Numbers (or Other Identifying numbers): DW23150901, DW24660904 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Finance Authority Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2023-004. Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not designed or implemented at the City to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement - Policy The City had not established a purchasing policy that reflected applicable state laws and regulations, including procedures to avoid the acquisition of unnecessary or duplicative items and procedures to ensure that all solicitations incorporate a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements for the material, product, or service to be procured. Additionally, the City did not maintain a policy that prohibits the use of statutorily or administratively imposed state, local, or tribal geographical preferences in evaluation of bids or proposals. Procurement The City expended federal funds to pay ten separate vendors to provide goods and services for the duration of the City's Lead Service Line Replacement project. A population of seven vendors were tested that had aggregated expenditures for the audit period that were less than the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000, but exceeded the $10,000 micro-purchase threshold. All seven of the vendors were tested; for four of the seven vendors, the City was unable to provide any documentation that the procurement method used was appropriate or that the procurement provided full and open competition or rationale to support the determination to limit competition. The history of the procurement, including rationale for the method of procurement, selection of the vendor, and the basis for the price, was not adequately documented. Additionally, a population of three vendors were identified with contract amount or aggregated total of expenditures that exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold of $150,000. All three vendors were tested; for one of these vendors, the procurement method used was not appropriate as the City relied on quotes obtained, rather than a formal procurement method as required for purchases that exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into sub-awards and covered transactions with award funds, recipients are required to verify that vendors are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), collecting a certification from that person, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Due to the agreement with the Indiana Finance Authority (IFA), the City was not required to perform testing over suspension and debarment for a majority of the vendors used; however, several drawdowns from the State Revolving Funds (SRF) program were used to reimburse the City for payments made to specific vendors. The vendors paid directly by the City were not included in IFA's procedures for checking suspension and debarment; therefore, the City was obligated to meet the requirement. The City did not maintain a set of procedures for checking suspension and debarment status of vendors for expenditures related to the SRF awards. A total of three vendors paid directly by the City exceeded the S&D threshold of $25,000 and were subject to testing. No documentation to show that suspension and debarment was verified prior to entering into the contract could be provided for any vendor. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases– (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . ." (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance award exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a non-competitive procurement can be used in accordance with § 200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: (1) Sealed bids. A procurement method in which bids are publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price) is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is the lowest in price. The sealed bids method is the preferred method for procuring construction, if the conditions. (i) In order for sealed bidding to be feasible, the following conditions should be present: (A) A complete, adequate, and realistic specification or purchase description is available; (B) Two or more responsible bidders are willing and able to compete effectively for the business; and (C) The procurement lends itself to a firm fixed price contract and the selection of the successful bidder can be made principally on the basis of price. (ii) If sealed bids are used, the following requirements apply: (A) Bids must be solicited from an adequate number of qualified sources, providing them sufficient response time prior to the date set for opening the bids, for local, and tribal governments, the invitation for bids must be publicly advertised; (B) The invitation for bids, which will include any specifications and pertinent attachments, must define the items or services in order for the bidder to properly respond; (C) All bids will be opened at the time and place prescribed in the invitation for bids, and for local and tribal governments, the bids must be opened publicly; (D) A firm fixed price contract award will be made in writing to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Where specified in bidding documents, factors such as discounts, transportation cost, and life cycle costs must be considered in determining which bid is lowest. Payment discounts will only be used to determine the low bid when prior experience indicates that such discounts are usually taken advantage of; and (E) Any or all bids may be rejected if there is a sound documented reason. (2) Proposals. A procurement method in which either a fixed price or costreimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. They are awarded in accordance with the following requirements: (i) Requests for proposals must be publicized and identify all evaluation factors and their relative importance. Proposals must be solicited from an adequate number of qualified offerors. Any response to publicized requests for proposals must be considered to the maximum extent practical; (ii) The non-Federal entity must have a written method for conducting technical evaluations of the proposals received and making selections; (iii) Contracts must be awarded to the responsible offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the non-Federal entity, with price and other factors considered; and (iv) The non-Federal entity may use competitive proposal procedures for qualifications-based procurement of architectural/engineering (A/E) professional services whereby offeror's qualifications are evaluated and the most qualified offeror is selected, subject to negotiation of fair and reasonable compensation. The method, where price is not used as a selection factor, can only be used in procurement of A/E professional services. It cannot be used to purchase other types of services though A/E firms that are a potential source to perform the proposed effort. 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." 2 CFR 200.214 states: "Non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. The regulations in 2 CFR part 180 restrict awards, subawards, and contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs or activities." 2 CFR 200.318(a) states: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The nonfederal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327." 2 CFR 200.318(d) states: "The non-Federal entity's procedures must avoid acquisition of unnecessary or duplicative items. Consideration should be given to consolidating or breaking out procurements to obtain a more economical purchase. Where appropriate, an analysis will be made of lease versus purchase alternatives, and any other appropriate analysis to determine the most economical approach." 2 CFR 200.319(c) states: "The non-Federal entity must conduct procurements in a manner that prohibits the use of statutorily or administratively imposed state, local, or tribal geographical preferences in the evaluation of bids or proposals, except in those cases where applicable Federal statutes expressly mandate or encourage geographic preference. Nothing in this section preempts state licensing laws. When contracting for architectural and engineering (A/E) services, geographic location may be a selection criterion provided its application leaves an appropriate number of qualified firms, given the nature and size of the project, to compete for the contract." 2 CFR 200.319(d) states: "The non-Federal entity must have written procedures for procurement transactions. These procedures must ensure that all solicitations: (1) Incorporate a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements for the material, product, or service to be procured. Such description must not, in competitive procurements, contain features which unduly restrict competition. The description may include a statement of the qualitative nature of the material, product or service to be procured and, when necessary, must set forth those minimum essential characteristics and standards to which it must conform if it is to satisfy its intended use. Detailed product specifications should be avoided if at all possible. When it is impractical or uneconomical to make a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements, a 'brand name or equivalent' description may be used as a means to define the performance or other salient requirements of procurement. The specific features of the named brand which must be met by offers must be clearly stated; and (2) Identify all requirements which the offerors must fulfill and all other factors to be used in evaluating bids or proposals." Cause The City did not maintain a procurement policy that would demonstrate the appropriate procedures to be followed when procuring with federal funding and were not aware of the need to follow federal guidelines for procurement or suspension and debarment for expenditures associated with the SRF awards. Effect Without a proper system of internal controls in place that operated effectively, noncompliance remained undetected. As a result, proper procurement procedures were not adhered to for all vendors. Without following the required methods for procurement, the City could be overpaying for services, or providing federal funds to an entity that is suspended or debarred. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funds to the City. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the City's management establish a proper system of internal controls to ensure expenditures made from federal awards use the appropriate procurement method and retain the documentation to support the procurement methods used in order to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the federal award and ensure that vendors paid from federal funds are neither suspended nor debarred. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-003 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Reporting Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): CONTRACT 64511, YR 2024 Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The County elected to receive the standard revenue loss allowance, allowing it to claim a total COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) allocation of $7,107,956 as revenue loss to use for government services. As such, all SLFRF program funds expended from January 1, 2024 to December 31, 2024, were under the revenue loss eligible category. The U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury) determined that there were no subawards under this eligible use category, and that recipients' use of revenue loss funds would not give rise to subrecipient relationships as there is no federal program or purpose to carry out in the case of revenue loss portion of the award. Recipients are required to submit quarterly or annually Project and Expenditure (P&E) reports to the Treasury. The reporting periods, as well as the respective due dates are based on the type of recipient and the recipient's population, as well as the recipient's allocation amount. Information to be reported includes projects funded, expenditures, and contracts for the appropriate reporting period. The County was classified as a metropolitan county with a population below 250,000 residents that received an allocation of less than $10 million in SLFRF. As such, the initial P&E report, covering the period from March 3, 2021 to March 31, 2022, was required to be submitted to the Treasury by April 30, 2022. The subsequent annual reports are to cover one calendar year and must be submitted to the Treasury by April 30 each year. The County submitted the P&E report by April 30, 2024, as required during the audit period. Although the County Auditor's Bookkeeper prepared the P&E report, and the County Auditor reviewed and submitted the report, internal controls were not effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, errors. The data summited included amounts which were not supported by the County's records. The County reported current expenditures for three projects on the annual report, for which there were no expenditures during the reporting period. The lack of effective internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Compliance and Reporting Guidance, page 10, states in part: ". . . 10. Reporting. All recipients of federal funds must complete financial, performance, and compliance reporting as required and outlined in Part 2 of this guidance. Expenditures may be reported on a cash or accrual basis, as long as the methodology is disclosed and consistently applied. Reporting must be consistent with the definition of expenditures pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1. Your organization should appropriately maintain accounting records for compiling and reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. . . ." 31 CFR 35.4(c) states in part: "Reporting and requests for other information. During the period of performance, recipients shall provide to the Secretary or her delegate, as applicable, periodic reports providing detailed accounting of the uses of funds, . . ." Cause The County Auditor's Bookkeeper stated that they understood that current expenditures and current obligations should agree to the cumulative expenditures and cumulative obligations, which resulted in reporting errors. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the County did not report current period obligations properly when filing the P&E report for the period April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the County. In addition, not meeting the SLFRF reporting requirements increases the likelihood that the public and the Treasury will not have access to transparent and accurate information regarding expenditures of federal awards. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the County design and implement a proper system of internal controls to provide for a segregation of duties in the preparation and review of federal reports to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place. We also recommended the development of policies and procedures to ensure the County provides the Treasury with complete and accurate information for the P&E report. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-004 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Reporting Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): CONTRACT# 64280, FY2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Health Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 HENDRICKS COUNTY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context Recipients are required to submit quarterly or annually Project and Expenditure (P&E) reports to the Department of the Treasury (Treasury). The reporting periods, as well as the respective due dates, are based upon type of recipient and its population, and the recipient's allocation amount. Information to be reported includes projects funded, expenditures, and contracts for the appropriate reporting period. The County was classified as a metropolitan county with a population below 250,000 residents that received an allocation of more than $10 million in COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds funding. As such, the initial P&E report, covering three calendar quarters from March 3, 2021 to December 31, 2021, was required to be submitted to the Treasury by January 31, 2022. The subsequent quarterly reports are to cover one calendar quarter and must be submitted to the Treasury by the last day of the month following the end of the period covered. The County submitted the P&E report, as required, and had a system of internal controls in place whereby one employee prepared and submitted the P&E reports and another employee reviewed the reports; however, it was not sufficient to prevent, or detect and correct, errors. The data submitted included amounts that were not supported by the County's records and amounts that should not have been included. Errors identified included the following: Quarter 1 P&E report - January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024 The current Period Obligations were understated by $1,440. Quarter 2 P&E report - April 1, 2024 to June 30, 2024 The current Period Obligations were understated by $29,020. Quarter 3 P&E report - July 1, 2024 to September 30, 2024 The current Period Obligations were understated by $30,197. The total Cumulative Obligations were understated by $299,096. The total Cumulative Expenditures were understated by $16,370. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 HENDRICKS COUNTY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Compliance and Reporting Guidance, State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, page 13, states in part: ". . . 10. Reporting. All recipients of federal funds must complete financial, performance, and compliance reporting as required and outlined in Part 2 of this guidance. Expenditures may be reported on a cash or accrual basis, as long as the methodology is disclosed and consistently applied. Reporting must be consistent with the definition of expenditures pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1. Your organization should appropriately maintain accounting records for compiling and reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. . . ." 31 CFR 35.4(c) states in part: "Reporting and requests for other information. During the period of performance, recipients shall provide to the Secretary or her delegate, as applicable, periodic reports providing detailed accounting of the uses of funds . . ." Cause The County's system of internal controls, including policies and procedures, was insufficient to prevent or detect errors on the P&E report prior to submission. Internal controls were in place but were not effective. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the County did not accurately report current period obligations and cumulative obligations when filing the P&E report. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management implement a proper system of internal controls, including policies and procedures, to ensure that the County provided the Treasury with complete and accurate information for the P&E report. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-002 Subject: Drinking Water State Revolving Fund - Procurement Federal Agency: Environmental Protection Agency Federal Program: Drinking Water State Revolving Fund Assistance Listings Number: 66.468 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): DW23332501 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Finance Authority Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The Town had not established an effective internal control system related to the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. The Town was not in compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Purchasing Policy The Town's purchasing policy did not reflect applicable state laws and regulations. In addition, the policy did not include procedures to avoid acquisition of unnecessary or duplicative items, procedures to ensure that all solicitations incorporate a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements for the material, product, or service to be procured, or procedures that prohibits the use of statutorily or administratively imposed state, local, or tribal geographical preferences in the evaluation of bids or proposals. Additionally, the Town's policy did not contain written standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest and governing the performance of its employees engaged in the selection, award, and administration of contracts. Small Purchases Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is customarily set at $250,000. However, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold of $150,000 or less for when small purchase procedures may be used. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. Micro-purchases are typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures are for those purchases above the micro-purchase threshold but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 16 TOWN OF KEWANNA SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Two vendors were identified that fell within the small purchase threshold. Purchases from the vendors totaled $34,414 and $92,437. As such, price or rate quotations from an adequate number of qualified sources should have been obtained. However, the Town did not obtain price or rate quotations for the purchases nor was full and open competition provided for the vendors. Additionally, the history of each procurement was not adequately documented, including rationale for the method of procurement, selection of vendor, and basis for price. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the purchasing policy and to small purchases procured during the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318(a) states: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The nonfederal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327." 2 CFR 200.318(c)(1) states: "The non-Federal entity must maintain written standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest and governing the actions of its employees engaged in the selection, award and administration of contracts. No employee, officer, or agent may participate in the selection, award, or administration of a contract supported by a Federal award if he or she has a real or apparent conflict of interest. Such a conflict of interest would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or other interest in or a tangible personal benefit from a firm considered for a contract. The officers, employees, and agents of the non-Federal entity may neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors, or anything of monetary value from contractors or parties to subcontracts. However, non-Federal entities may set standards for situations in which the financial interest is not substantial or the gift is an unsolicited item of nominal value. The standards of conduct must provide for disciplinary actions to be applied for violations of such standards by officers, employees, or agents of the non-Federal entity." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 TOWN OF KEWANNA SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.318(d) states: "The non-Federal entity's procedures must avoid acquisition of unnecessary or duplicative items. Consideration should be given to consolidating or breaking out procurements to obtain a more economical purchase. Where appropriate, an analysis will be made of lease versus purchase alternatives, and any other appropriate analysis to determine the most economical approach." 2 CFR 200.319(c) states: "The non-Federal entity must conduct procurements in a manner that prohibits the use of statutorily or administratively imposed state, local, or tribal geographical preferences in the evaluation of bids or proposals, except in those cases where applicable Federal statutes expressly mandate or encourage geographic preference. Nothing in this section preempts state licensing laws. When contracting for architectural and engineering (A/E) services, geographic location may be a selection criterion provided its application leaves an appropriate number of qualified firms, given the nature and size of the project, to compete for the contract." 2 CFR 200.319(d) states: "The non-Federal entity must have written procedures for procurement transactions. These procedures must ensure that all solicitations: (1) Incorporate a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements for the material, product, or service to be procured. Such description must not, in competitive procurements, contain features which unduly restrict competition. The description may include a statement of the qualitative nature of the material, product or service to be procured and, when necessary, must set forth those minimum essential characteristics and standards to which it must conform if it is to satisfy its intended use. Detailed product specifications should be avoided if at all possible. When it is impractical or uneconomical to make a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements, a 'brand name or equivalent' description may be used as a means to define the performance or other salient requirements of procurement. The specific features of the named brand which must be met by offers must be clearly stated; and (2) Identify all requirements which the offerors must fulfill and all other factors to be used in evaluating bids or proposals." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 TOWN OF KEWANNA SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (2) Small purchases– (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . ." Cause The Town was unable to provide documentation to demonstrate it had policies or procedures in place to comply with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the Town cannot demonstrate it obtained an adequate number of price or rate quotations prior to selecting a vendor. Therefore, the Town could have overpaid for the services obtained. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the Town's management design and implement a system of internal controls to ensure that a purchasing policy is in place and that quotes are obtained for all small purchases. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-003 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Reporting Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): FY 2024 Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2023-004. Condition and Context The County had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. Recipients are required to submit quarterly or annually Project and Expenditure (P&E) reports to the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury). The reporting periods, as well as the respective due dates, are based on the type of recipient and the recipient's population, as well as the recipient's allocation amount. Information to be reported includes projects funded, expenditures, and contracts for the appropriate reporting period. The County was classified as a county with a population below 250,000 residents that received an allocation of less than $10 million in COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF). As such, the P&E report, covering the period from April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024, was required to be submitted to the Treasury by April 30, 2024. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 MIAMI COUNTY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The County submitted one P&E report during the audit period, which was obtained from the Treasury's website. Although one employee prepared the P&E report and another reviewed the entries, the system of internal controls was not effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, errors. The information submitted included amounts based on the incorrect period, amounts that should have been omitted, and amounts which were based on budgeted amounts instead of actual amounts, as such, the reports were not fairly presented. Errors identified included the following: Total Cumulative Obligations were overstated by $2,077,147. Total Current Obligations were overstated by $245,909. The lack of internal controls was a systemic issue throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." Compliance and Reporting Guidance, State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, page 13, states in part: ". . . 10. Reporting. All recipients of federal funds must complete financial, performance, and compliance reporting as required and outlined in Part 2 of this guidance. Expenditures may be reported on a cash or accrual basis, as long as the methodology is disclosed and consistently applied. Reporting must be consistent with the definition of expenditures pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1. Your organization should appropriately maintain accounting records for compiling and reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. . . ." 31 CFR 35.4(c) states in part: "Reporting and requests for other information. During the period of performance, recipients shall provide to the Secretary . . . periodic reports providing detailed accounting of the uses of funds . . ." Cause Although a system of internal controls over the P&E report was designed by management, which included segregation of duties, it was not documented, and it did not ensure that the County provided the Treasury with complete and accurate information related to the SLFRF awards. The officials were new and not familiar with the reporting requirements. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 MIAMI COUNTY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the County did not accurately report when filing the P&E report for the period April 1, 2023 to March 31, 2024. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the County. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the County design and implement a proper system of internal controls that would ensure appropriate reviews, approvals and oversight are taking place. Additionally, management should develop policies and procedures to ensure that the County provides the Treasury with complete and accurate information for the P&E report. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-003 Subject: Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities Assistance Listings Number: 10.760 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 92-02, 92-03, 92-04, 92-05 Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context As part of sound management of the federal award, the City was responsible for implementing a system of internal controls that would ensure compliance with the applicable requirements. The City had not properly designed or implemented such a system, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a nonfederal entity. The State of Indiana has established a more restrictive threshold of $150,000 for informal procurement methods. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds: micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Small purchase procedures require that price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources or documented reasoning to support a single source provider. Two vendors were identified that were paid $10,500 and $59,408, respectively, during the audit period using federal funds under the award, thereby requiring small purchase procedures for both procurements. Both vendors were selected for testing. The City was unable to provide any documentation for either vendor that the procurement method used was appropriate or that the procurement provided full and open competition or rationale to support the determination to limit competition. Additionally, the history of the procurement, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of the vendor, and the basis for the price, was not adequately documented for either vendor. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. . . ." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use document procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases- (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . (c) Noncompetitive procurement. There are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply: (1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold (see paragraph (a)(1) of this section); (2) The item is available only from a single source; (3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; (4) The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non-Federal entity; or (5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate." Cause The vendors in question had been utilized by the City for various services over the course of multiple years, including for several years under this award with the ongoing multi-year project. For continuity purposes, the City chose to limit competition when procuring the services. The City included the requirements for limiting competition in its purchasing policy but did not follow the established policy. Effect Without a proper system of internal controls in place that operated effectively, noncompliance remained undetected. As a result, proper procurement procedures were not adhered to for all vendors. Without following the required methods for procurement, the City could be overpaying for services by not receiving the most competitive pricing. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the City's management establish a proper system of internal controls to ensure expenditures made from federal awards use the appropriate procurement method and retain the documentation to support the procurement methods used in order to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the federal award. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-006 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Reporting Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): 2024 Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context As part of sound management of the federal award, the City was responsible for implementing a system of internal controls that would ensure compliance with the applicable requirements. The City had not properly designed or implemented such a system, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. The City was required to submit an annual Project and Expenditure (P&E) report to the U.S. Department of the Treasury. The P&E report data to be submitted included, but was not limited to, current period and total cumulative obligations and current period and total cumulative expenditures. We were unable to trace the annual P&E report to the City's records. The errors identified were as follows: • Total cumulative obligations were overstated by $23,337. • Total cumulative expenditures were understated by $171,136. • Current period expenditures were understated by $163,789. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.302(b) states in part: "The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following . . . (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. . . ." 31 CFR 35.4(c) states in part: "Reporting and requests for other information. During the period of performance, recipients shall provide to the Secretary periodic reports providing detailed accounting of the uses of funds, . . ." Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Compliance and Reporting Guidance, page 10, states in part: ". . . 10. Reporting. All recipients of federal funds must complete financial, performance, and compliance reporting as required and outlined in Part 2 of this guidance. Expenditures may be reported on a cash or accrual basis, as long as the methodology is disclosed and consistently applied. Reporting must be consistent with the definition of expenditures pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1. Your organization should appropriately maintain accounting records for compiling and reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. . . ." Cause The Clerk-Treasurer had served in the position for two years when the report for 2024 was due and was inexperienced with the reporting requirements of the award. As a result, the Clerk-Treasurer did not properly prepare the report. Additionally, the Clerk-Treasurer was solely responsible for preparing and submitting the report with no oversight, review, or approval process that would have allowed for prevention, or detection and correction, of the noncompliance. Effect Without a proper system of internal controls in place that operated effectively, the City did not file an accurate annual P&E report as required under the federal award. As a result, material noncompliance occurred and remained undetected. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the City's management establish a proper system of internal controls and develop and implement reporting policies and procedures to ensure that all required reports are complete and accurate when submitted. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
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.
FINDING 2024-001 Information on the federal program: Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Pass-Through Entity: N/A – Direct Grant Federal Program: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Noncompliance Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO)...." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. . . .” 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: The City did not have internal controls in place to ensure compliance with the procurement and suspension and debarment requirements. The City had not designed or implemented adequate policies or procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures for small purchase and simplified acquisition procurement thresholds were followed. Cause: The City had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirements for covered transactions. Effect: Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to and vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. The failure to comply with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the City. Questioned costs: There are no questioned costs. Context: For one out of three samples selected for the small purchase procurement threshold, three quotes and rationale for selecting the vendor were not documented. Small purchase procurements require three competing quotes and rationale for selection of the vendor. The procurement was for park improvement design services. The City was unaware that professional services are required to follow the federal procurement process. Per grant requirements, all grant funded expenditures require appropriate procurement, regardless of whether it is a good or service. For two out of three samples selected for suspension and debarment testing, the City did not have support that vendors procured under CSLFRF funding were not suspended or debarred. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: Yes, finding 2023-003 in the prior year report. Recommendation: We recommend that the City establish and implement control procedures to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. This should include ensuring proper procurement methods are followed, suspension and debarment checks are performed and documented prior to entering into the transaction. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: Management acknowledges the finding. See management’s corrective action plan attached to this audit report.
United States Department of the Treasury Reference Number: 2024-010 Program: 21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) Federal Award Number: 51-6000255 Type of Finding: Noncompliance and Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance Compliance Requirement: Reporting Condition: The following conditions were found during testing of the Town’s Annual Report for the period April 1, 2023 through March 31, 2024. 1. The Town’s procedures over the reporting did not include documentation of the preparation and review of the report. 2. Testing of the key line items- Obligations and Expenditures - Quantifiable Objective Criteria revealed the following: a. The Town reported the budgeted amount as cumulative obligations. b. The Town reported the same amount for current period obligations, current period expenditures and cumulative expenditures. The reported amount appeared to be the calculated amount of cumulative obligations. The support for the report did not appear to calculate the current period obligations or current period expenditures. A similar finding was reported in prior years’ audits. Criteria: United States Department of the Treasury State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Compliance and Reporting Guidance version 5.0 was issued September 20, 2022 and provides detailed reporting requirements 31 CFR §35.3 defines obligation and 2 CFR §200.1 defines expenditures. 2 CFR § 200.303 requires the implementation of effective internal controls: “Internal control requires the non-federal entity to establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the conditions of the federal award.” Cause: The Town experienced turnover at key positions in the Finance Department during the year. Effect: The Town was not in compliance with the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) at 2 C.F.R. § 200.32 and the Guidance on Recipient Compliance and Reporting Responsibilities, issued by the U.S. Department of the Treasury. Recommendation: We recommend that the Finance Department enhance its processes and oversight surrounding grant financial reporting to ensure all required reports are completed accurately and timely. Views of Responsible Town Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: See corrective action plan. Responsible Positions: Town Manager and Director of Finance
FINDING 2024-004 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): Contract #65873, SLT-3157 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Natural Resources Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2023-004. Condition and Context Procurement The County did adopt an applicable federal purchasing policy. The Lake County Indiana Purchasing Manual for Supplies, Services, and Public Works states on page 19 that "Federal funds less than $25,000 will obtain 3 quotes by telephone or fax and obtain board approval. . . ." The Lake County Indiana Purchasing Manual for Supplies, Services, and Public Works also states on page 19 that "Federal funds more than $25,000 but less than $50,000 will invite 3 quotes at an open public meeting." The federal procurement requirement, per the Code of Federal Regulations section 200.320, states that for small purchases, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. In 2024, the County had two vendors. One was paid $27,963, and one was paid $12,970 for a total of $40,933 from the COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) under Contract #65873 from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources. However, the County did not obtain price or rate quotes for the applicable vendors under the small purchase threshold as required per its purchasing policy or the federal requirements. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with the SLFRF award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000 and all subawards. The verification is to be done by checking the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), collecting a certification from that person or entity, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person or entity. The County did not have policies or procedures in place related to the suspension and debarment requirements for the SLFRF funds. Three covered transactions totaling $7,530,563 paid from the SLFRF funds were identified. Documentation to show that suspension and debarment was verified prior to entering into contracts with these three vendors could not be provided by the County. The amounts for which suspension and debarment were not verified for Contract #65873 from the Indiana Department of Natural Resources and the SLT-3157 directly from the U.S. Department of the Treasury were $27,963 and $7,502,600, respectively. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the transactions identified above. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318(i) states: "The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use document procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause The County's purchasing policy does not provide procedures on how the County will ensure the appropriate number of quotes will be obtained for small purchases or how the County will ensure compliance with the suspension and debarment requirements. Effect Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the repayment or loss of future federal funding to the County. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation Management of the County should develop procedures to ensure the appropriate procurement methods are used for items or services procured that are within the small purchase threshold and to ensure vendors are not suspended or debarred when expending federal funds. Appropriate documentation should be maintained to ensure compliance with procurement and suspension and debarment. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-005 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Reporting Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): SLT-3157 Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2023-005. Condition and Context Recipients are required to submit quarterly or annual Project and Expenditure (P&E) reports to the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury). The reporting periods, as well as the respective due dates, are based upon type of recipient and its population as well as the recipient's allocation amount. Information to be reported includes projects funded, expenditures, and contracts for the appropriate reporting period. The County was classified as a county with a population that exceeds 250,000 residents. As such, the County was required to submit quarterly P&E reports in 2024. The amounts submitted for three of the four quarterly P&E reports were not supported by the County's records and contained the following errors: The 2024 Quarter 1 P&E report period and cumulative expenditures were each overstated by $333,424. The 2024 Quarter 2 P&E report period and cumulative expenditures were understated by $842,954 and $509,530, respectively. The 2024 Quarter 3 P&E report period and cumulative expenditures were understated by $239,925 and $749,455, respectively. Additionally, the current period obligations and cumulative obligations amounts reported in all quarterly reports could not be verified as supporting documentation was not provided for audit. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was a systemic issue throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." Compliance and Reporting Guidance, State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, page 13 states in part: ". . . 13. Reporting. All recipients of federal funds must complete financial, performance, and compliance reporting as required and outlined in Part 2 of this guidance. Expenditures may be reported on a cash or accrual basis, as long as the methodology is disclosed and consistently applied. Reporting must be consistent with the definition of expenditures pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1. Your organization should appropriately maintain accounting records for compiling and reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. . . ." 31 CFR 35.4(c) states in part: "Reporting and requests for other information. During the period of performance, recipients shall provide to the Secretary or her delegate, as applicable, periodic reports providing detailed accounting of the uses of funds, . . ." Cause All quarterly P&E reports were prepared and submitted by a consultant without an oversight or review process in place to prevent, or detect and correct, errors prior to submission. Effect Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the repayment or loss of future federal funding to the County. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the County's management establish a proper system of internal controls that would ensure compliance with the Reporting compliance requirement. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2024-004 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Reporting Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): FY 2021 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Health Compliance Requirement: Reporting Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2023-004. Condition and Context Recipients are required to submit quarterly or annually Project and Expenditure (P&E) reports to the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury). The reporting periods, as well as the respective due dates, are based upon type of recipient and its population, as well as the recipient's allocation amount. Information to be reported includes projects funded, expenditures, and contracts for the appropriate reporting period. The County was classified as a county with a population below 250,000 residents that are allocated more than $10 million in COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF). As such, the P&E quarterly reports were to cover one calendar quarter and must be submitted to the Treasury by the last day of the month following the end of the period covered. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 FLOYD COUNTY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The County's current policy and procedure for complying with reporting requirements is to have the Director of Operations prepare the P&E reports with assistance from his Administrative Assistant and then the President of the Board of County Commissioners certifies the P&E reports. The current internal control has been determined to be ineffective since the P&E reports do not agree with the County's financial records. The County submitted four P&E reports during the audit period; however, the errors as identified below were noted on all four reports. Quarterly Report: October 1, 2023 to December 31, 2023 • Current period obligations reported 8 projects with errors cumulatively totaling $846,032. • Current period expenditures reported 3 projects with errors cumulatively totaling $52,645. • Cumulative expenditures reported 19 projects with errors cumulatively totaling $1,142,929. Quarterly Report: January 1, 2024 to March 31, 2024 • Current period obligations reported 5 projects with errors cumulatively totaling $501,694. • Current period expenditures reported 3 projects with errors cumulatively totaling $159,815. • Cumulative expenditures reported 19 projects with errors cumulatively totaling $1,174,814. Quarterly Report: April 1, 2024 to June 30, 2024 • Current period obligations reported 5 projects with errors cumulatively totaling $580,935. • Current period expenditures reported 1 project with errors cumulatively totaling $44,288. • Cumulative expenditures reported 19 projects with errors cumulatively totaling $1,088,021. Quarterly Report: July 1, 2024 to September 30, 2024 • Current period obligations reported 3 projects with errors cumulatively totaling $291,992. • Current period expenditures reported 1 project with errors cumulatively totaling $144,863. • Cumulative expenditures reported 20 projects with errors cumulatively totaling $1,232,884. The lack of effective internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the entire audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 FLOYD COUNTY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Compliance and Reporting Guidance, page 10, states in part: ". . . 10. Reporting. All recipients of federal funds must complete financial, performance, and compliance reporting as required and outlined in Part 2 of this guidance. Expenditures may be reported on a cash or accrual basis, as long as the methodology is disclosed and consistently applied. Reporting must be consistent with the definition of expenditures pursuant to 2 CFR 200.1. Your organization should appropriately maintain accounting records for compiling and reporting accurate, compliant financial data, in accordance with appropriate accounting standards and principles. . . ." 31 CFR 35.4(c) states in part: "Reporting and requests for other information. During the period of performance, recipients shall provide to the Secretary periodic reports providing detailed accounting of the uses of funds, . . ." Cause The County's oversight process for filing the P&E reports did not detect errors. The errors were the result of including expenditures from the incorrect time periods. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, including policies and procedures that provide segregation of duties and additional oversight as needed, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As such, the County did not report current period obligations, current period expenditures, and cumulative expenditures properly when filing the P&E reports during the audit period. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the County. In addition, not meeting the SLFRF reporting requirements increases the likelihood that the public will not have access to transparent and accurate information regarding expenditures of federal awards. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the County strengthen its system of internal controls to provide for a segregation of duties in the preparation and review of federal reports to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place. We also recommended the development of policies and procedures to ensure the County provides the Treasury with complete and accurate information for the P&E reports. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 FLOYD COUNTY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
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.
Pass-Through Entity: Federated States of Micronesia National Government Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior AL Program: 15.875 Economic, Social, and Political Development of the Territories Federal Award No.: D22AF00329, D23AF00094, D23AF00270, D24AF00047, D24AF00210 Area: Cash Management Questioned Costs: $2,386,924 Criteria: Article IV, Section 5(b)(ii) of the Fiscal Procedures Agreement (FPA) Sector Grants states that infrastructure projects shall be paid on the basis of Accrued Expenditures, provided the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia maintains procedures to minimize the time elapsing between the disbursement of funds to the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia and its payment of the Accrued Expenditure. In accordance with 31 CFR part 205.12(b)(4), a Federal Program Agency transfers the actual amount of Federal funds to a State that will be paid out by the State, in a lump sum, not more than three business days prior to the day the State issues checks. Condition: 1. CSG did not maintain written procedures to minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of infrastructure project funds and the disbursement of such funds. 2. Nine (or 36%) out of twenty-five drawdowns made during the year, were disbursed in excess of the three business days as required by 31 CFR part 205.12(b)(4). Cause: CSG does not have established policies and procedures to minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of infrastructure project funds received from the FSM National Government and CSG’s disbursement of such funds to vendors. Effect or Potential Effect: CSG is in noncompliance with the applicable cash management requirements and questioned costs totaling $2,386,924 results. The amount of questioned costs is based on the total amount of drawdowns made during the year. Identification as a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: CSG should establish written policies and implement procedures to minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of infrastructure project funds and the disbursement of such funds for program purposes. Although not a State as defined in 2 CFR 200.1, management should consider the threebusiness day rule on cash advance funding stated in 31 CFR part 205.12(b)(4). Views of Responsible Officials: The State agrees with the finding. Corrective Action is described in the Corrective Action Plan.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior AL Program: 15.875 Economic, Social, and Political Development of the Territories Federal Award No.: D20AF00054, D21AF00024, D23AF00047, D23AF00061 Area: Cash Management Questioned Costs: $1,643,137 Criteria: Article IV, Section 5(b)(ii) of the Fiscal Procedures Agreement (FPA) Sector Grants states that infrastructure projects shall be paid on the basis of Accrued Expenditures, provided the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia maintains procedures to minimize the time elapsing between the disbursement of funds to the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia and its payment of the Accrued Expenditure. In accordance with 31 CFR part 205.12(b)(4), a Federal Program Agency transfers the actual amount of Federal funds to a State that will be paid out by the State, in a lump sum, not more than three business days prior to the day the State issues checks. Condition: 1. FSMNG did not maintain written procedures to minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of infrastructure project funds and the disbursement of such funds. 2. Six (or 50%) out of twelve drawdowns tested, FSMNG disbursed the funds for more than three business days. Cause: FSMNG does not have established policies and procedures to minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of infrastructure project funds received from the federal agency and FSMNG’s disbursement of such funds to vendors. Effect or potential effect: FSMNG is in noncompliance with the applicable cash management requirements and a questioned cost of $1,643,137 result. The questioned costs is based on the amounts of drawdowns made. Identification of a Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: FSMNG should establish written policies and implement procedures to minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of infrastructure project funds and the disbursement of such funds for program purposes. Management should consider the three-business day rule on cash advance funding stated in 31 CFR part 205.12(b)(4). Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding as to the absence of a separate written procedure specifically addressing the time elapsing between the receipt of infrastructure project funds and their disbursement, but disagrees with the application of the three-business-day standard and with the questioned costs. A dedicated cash management procedure will be developed to ensure clarity, setting out the disbursement process and target timeframes consistent with Article IV, Section 5(b)(ii) of the Fiscal Procedures Agreement (FPA). Management's view is that this condition constitutes an internal control deficiency and does not warrant questioned costs. The FPA — the governing award term for these sector grants — requires only that the FSM National Government maintain procedures to minimize the time elapsing between the receipt of funds and payment of the accrued expenditure; it prescribes no specific day-count standard. All disbursements tested were made through the FSM National Government's internal wire-out approval process, which requires authorized signatories, and all were completed within the month of receipt. The deficiency identified is therefore the absence of a documented procedure — a matter of internal control design — and not a failure in the eligibility or propriety of the payments themselves. With respect to the questioned costs of $1,643,137, management notes that the amounts represent actual payments to vendors for eligible infrastructure accrued expenditures. The costs do not meet the definition of questioned costs under 2 CFR 200.1: they did not result from a violation of the terms and conditions of the Federal award, as the FPA contains no three-business-day requirement; they are fully supported by adequate documentation — management reaffirms that all transactions were vouched as completed during fieldwork, with all samples provided and cleared and no missing items; and they are not unreasonable, reflecting the actions of a prudent administration operating its required payment approval controls. Further, under paragraph (3)(i) of the questioned cost definition in 2 CFR 200.1, questioned costs are not an improper payment until reviewed and confirmed as such — and no such determination applies here, as the funds were disbursed in full for their intended grant purposes. Management accordingly requests that the finding be reported as an internal control deficiency with questioned costs of $0. Summary Schedule — Remarks (2024-010): Finding agreed as to the absence of a separate written procedure on time elapsing — dedicated cash management procedure to be developed per FPA Article IV, Section 5(b)(ii); disagreed on the three-business-day standard and the questioned costs. The FPA prescribes no day-count standard, all disbursements were within the month through the required wire approval process, and all transactions were vouched as completed during fieldwork with no missing items — per the 2 CFR 200.1 questioned cost definition, including paragraph (3)(i), questioned costs of $0 are warranted.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Interior AL Program: 15.875 Economic, Social, and Political Development of the Territories Federal Award No.: D23AF00263, D24AF003334, D24AF00335, D24AF00336, D24AF00340, D24AF00341, D24AF00344, D24AF00350, D24AF00378 Area: Subrecipient Monitoring Questioned Costs: $94,422,154 Criteria: Article VI, Section 1(n) of the Fiscal Procedures Agreement (FPA) states that the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia will follow its laws and procedures when awarding and administering Sub-Grants. The Governments shall ensure that: (i) Every Sub-Grant includes any clauses required by the 2023 Amended Compact, the Grant terms and conditions, and this Agreement; (ii) Sub-Grantees are aware of requirements imposed upon them by the 2023 Amended Compact, the Grant terms and conditions, and this agreement; and (iii) The Sub-Grantee can meet the financial management standards of this Agreement. Article VI, Section 2(a)(i) also states that the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia shall be responsible for the management and monitoring of the day-today operations of all Sector Grants and their activities, to assure compliance with all applicable Sector Grant terms and conditions. Additionally, Article VI, Section 1(h) requires The Government of the Federated States of Micronesia shall not award funds received pursuant to the 2023 Amended Compact to any party which is debarred, suspended or otherwise excluded from and ineligible for participation in United States assistance programs. The Government of the Federated States of Micronesia shall ensure that Grants shall not go to those parties identified in the SAM Exclusions List. Furthermore, Article IV, Section 5(b)(ii) says the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia maintains procedures to minimize the time elapsing between the disbursement of funds to the Government of the Federated States of Micronesia and its payment of the Accrued Expenditure. Condition: 1. The FSM National Government does not have subrecipient monitoring procedures as required by the FPA. Thus, the FSM National Government did not perform the minimum subrecipient monitoring requirements over the $94,422,154 amounts passed to subrecipients. a. Ensure that every sub-grant includes any clauses required by the 2023 Amended Compact, the Grant terms and conditions, and the FPA. b. Ensure Sub Grantees are aware of requirements imposed upon them by the Compact, as amended, the sector Grant awards and the FPA. c. The Sub-Grantee can meet the financial management standards of the FPA. d. Suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to approving of the subaward. 2. FSMNG did not properly monitor payments to subrecipients, with a total population of $23,177,976, to ensure that the subrecipients timely disbursed the funds upon receipt from FSMNG. No questioned costs are presented as amounts are already questioned at Condition 1. Cause: 1. FSMNG does not have policies and procedures that comply with Article VI, Section 1 of the Fiscal Procedures Agreement. 2. FSMNG does not have established policies and procedures to minimize time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the subrecipient and the disbursement of such funds by the subrecipient. Effect or potential effect: 1. FSM National Government is in noncompliance with applicable subrecipient monitoring requirements and questioned costs of $94,422,154, which is the total subrecipient disbursements made during the year, result. 2. The FSM National Government is in noncompliance with the applicable subrecipient cash management monitoring requirements. Identification as a Repeat Finding: 2023-009 Recommendation: 1. FSMNG should update their established policies and procedures to be in accordance with Article VI, Section 1(n) and Section 2(a)(i) of the Fiscal Procedures Agreement to comply with the requirements for pass-through-entities. FSMNG should consider adopting the provisions identified in 2 CFR 200.322 when designing the policies in procedures, which provide details regarding the requirements for Pass-Through Entities for subrecipient monitoring. 2. FSMNG should establish a policy and implement formal monitoring procedures to ensure that the subrecipient complies with the requirement to minimize the time elapsing between the transfer of federal funds to the subrecipient and the disbursement of such funds for program purposes. Management should consider the three-business day rule on cash advance funding stated in 31 CFR part 205.12(b)(4). Views of Responsible Officials: Management disagrees with condition 1. The FSM National Government does have a subrecipient agreement in place. All Compact sector grants are properly allocated through JEMCO for all sub-grantees, and a subrecipient agreement is transmitted to the FSM State Governments for their concurrence each year, under which the states are obliged to the grant terms and conditions. This agreement is signed by both parties — the President and the Governors, as the allottees of the funds — and the process is facilitated by the Office of Compact Management. The matters listed at conditions 1(a) through 1(d) — the inclusion of clauses required by the 2023 Amended Compact, the sub-grantees' awareness of the requirements imposed upon them, their ability to meet the financial management standards of the FPA, and verification prior to approval of the subaward — are all part of this signed subrecipient agreement. Management further notes that condition 1's statement that subrecipient monitoring procedures are 'required by the FPA' is not accurate: nowhere in the FPA is such a requirement prescribed. Throughout the FPA, the obligations rest with the 'Government of the Federated States of Micronesia,' which the FPA itself defines as the Government established and organized by the Constitution of the Federated States of Micronesia, including all the political subdivisions and entities comprising that Government. Under the FSM's longstanding interpretation of that definition, each FSM State Government is itself a grantee within the Government of the FSM and is entitled to its own management and monitoring of the day-to-day operations of its sector grants, consistent with Article VI, Section 2(a)(i). Under the recent interpretation advanced by DOI, however, these responsibilities rest with the FSM National Government, which is now to be classed as a pass-through entity in respect of the states' shares of Compact funds. This classification is a new proposed treatment arising from the ongoing Compact discussions with DOI, consistent with the matters described in the responses to Findings 2024-008 and 2024-009. The FSM National Government is now working on establishing the subrecipient agreement framework and the associated policies and procedures to align with DOI's requirements, taking into account the Uniform Guidance provisions on pass-through entity requirements referred to in the recommendation. Management also disagrees with condition 2. The Compact sector grants concerned are paid on an advance basis: under Article IV, Section 5(b)(i) of the FPA, periodic payments for operational grants are made as soon as practicable after the first business day of each fiscal quarter to fund the financial requirements of that quarter. The time-elapsing provision relied upon in the criteria — Article IV, Section 5(b)(ii) — applies only to sector grants for infrastructure projects, which are paid on the basis of accrued expenditures. The requirement to minimize the time elapsing therefore does not apply to these disbursements to the states, unless they relate to infrastructure. In any event, as demonstrated by the samples tested, funds are disbursed to the states within the month of receipt, through the FSM National Government's required wire-out approval process as described in the response to Finding 2024-010. With respect to the questioned costs of $94,422,154 — the total of subrecipient disbursements made during the year — management's position is that the matters identified constitute, at most, internal control deficiencies relating to the formal documentation of subrecipient monitoring policies and procedures. That framework is now being established, and in accordance with the agreement with DOI, it is to be implemented by 1 October 2026. The conditions do not warrant questioned costs. All samples requested were provided to the auditors, vouched, and cleared, meaning the underlying disbursements are fully supported by adequate documentation. The costs did not result from a violation of the terms and conditions of the Federal award, given that the FPA prescribes no subrecipient monitoring procedures and the pass-through classification is a newly proposed treatment still being settled with DOI; and the costs are not unreasonable, representing the allocation of Compact sector grant funds to the FSM State Governments as approved through JEMCO. Under the definition of questioned costs in 2 CFR 200.1, including paragraph (3)(i), questioning the entire population of subrecipient disbursements on account of an internal control deficiency is not warranted. Management accordingly requests that the finding be reported as an internal control deficiency with questioned costs of $0. Summary Schedule — Remarks (2024-013): Repeat 2023-009. Condition 1 disagreed — a subrecipient agreement exists, signed annually by the President and Governors as allottees, facilitated by the Office of Compact Management, covering conditions 1(a)–(d), with allocations approved through JEMCO; the FPA prescribes no subrecipient monitoring procedures, and the pass-through classification for National is a new treatment per DOI discussions. Condition 2 disagreed — Compact sector grants are paid on an advance basis under FPA Article IV, Section 5(b)(i); the time-elapsing proviso in Section 5(b)(ii) applies only to infrastructure, and in any event disbursements to states are made within the month of receipt. At most internal control deficiencies — the monitoring framework is being established and, per the DOI agreement, is to be implemented by 1 October 2026. Questioned costs contested — all samples provided, vouched, and cleared; per 2 CFR 200.1, including paragraph (3)(i), questioned costs of $0 are warranted. Auditor Response: Condition 1 – Based on February 11, 2026 communication provided by the Department of Interior, the interpretation that the FPA aligns with the provisions of 2 CFR 200.332 is correct and consistent with expectation that FSMNG should conduct subrecipient monitoring procedures over funds passed down to the different FSM states. Condition 2 – The amount of questioned cost identified pertains to fund 19 infrastructure projects passed-through to each state, therefore subject to be monitored for timeliness of disbursement as required by the FPA.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services AL Program: 93.323 Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases Federal Award No.: NU50CK000513 Area: Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Questioned Costs: $509,463 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.303(a), the recipient and subrecipient must establish, document, and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the recipient or subrecipient is managing the Federal award in compliance with the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Additionally, in accordance with 2 CFR section 180.300, entities that enter into covered transactions must verify that the person with whom they intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified by: (a) Checking SAM.gov Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Lastly, according to 2 CFR 180.220(b)(1), a procurement transaction is considered a cover transaction if the contract amount is expected or to equal or exceed $25,000. Condition: For nine (or 100%) of eight purchase orders or contracts selected for testing, with a total population of $509,463, FSMNG did not perform verification whether the individual or contractor was suspended or debarred prior to entering into a covered transaction. Cause: FSMNG does not have an established policy and procedure for verification of the suspension and debarment status of persons or contractors prior to entering into a covered transaction that is in accordance with 2 CFR 180.300. Effect or potential effect: FSMNG is in noncompliance with the applicable procurement and suspension and debarment requirements, questioned costs of $509,463 result. Identification of a Repeat Finding: 2023-018 Recommendation: FSMNG should establish policies and procedures that monitor the suspension and debarment status of vendors prior to entering into a covered transaction that is designed based on any of the suggested methods in 2 CFR 180.300. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding as it relates to the absence of an established written policy and procedure for verifying the suspension and debarment status of persons or contractors prior to entering into a covered transaction, but disagrees with the questioned costs. Management's position is that this constitutes an internal control deficiency and does not warrant questioned costs. With respect to the questioned costs of $509,463, management notes that the entire population from which the questioned costs derive comprises allowable transactions, and verification against the SAM.gov exclusions list confirmed that no vendor or contractor in the population was suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. The purpose of the verification requirement in 2 CFR 180.300 — to ensure that covered transactions are not entered into with excluded or disqualified parties — was therefore met in substance: no federal funds went to any excluded party. The costs did not result from a violation of the terms and conditions of the Federal award in substance, are fully supported by adequate documentation, and are not unreasonable. Under the definition of questioned costs in 2 CFR 200.1, including paragraph (3)(i), there should not be a questioned cost for this type of finding, and management accordingly requests that the finding be reported as an internal control deficiency with questioned costs of $0. As corrective action, the compliance team and all departments have now been guided on and made aware of this requirement, and suspension and debarment verification checks are being performed on an ongoing basis as part of the standard checklist of checks prior to entering into covered transactions. In line with the auditors' recommendation, this practice will be formalized into established policies and procedures for monitoring the suspension and debarment status of vendors, designed on the verification methods provided in 2 CFR 180.300. Summary Schedule — Remarks (2024-016): Repeat 2023-018. Finding agreed as an internal control deficiency — absence of a written S&D verification policy; questioned costs disagreed: the full population comprises allowable transactions and no vendor was on the SAM.gov exclusions list, so the substantive purpose of 2 CFR 180.300 was met — per 2 CFR 200.1, including paragraph (3)(i), questioned costs of $0 are warranted. Compliance team and all departments guided and aware; S&D checks performed on an ongoing basis as part of the standard checklist, to be formalized into policies and procedures per the recommendation.
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.