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.
Reporting – FFATA Subawards Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Federal Program Title: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Cluster ALN: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 23A55AY000040–01–00 April 1, 2023 – June 30, 2026 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), Texas Workforce (TWC) must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that TWC is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) (Pub. L. No. 109- 282), as amended by Section 6202 of Public Law 110-252, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Condition: As the prime recipient of grant funding, TWC is responsible for reporting first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more in FSRS. Audit procedures included testing 59 subawards made during the fiscal year for FFATA requirements, including subawards made by Texas Education Agency (TEA) using state pass through funds from TWC. TWC passed through $3,000,000 of federal grant funds to TEA who in turn made 33 subawards totaling $2,911,755. Based on Part 3 of the 2024 compliance supplement, transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship. Accordingly, subawards made by TEA should be reported in FSRS by TWC as the prime recipient. The following compliance exceptions were identified: See chart or table in the Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Questioned costs: None Context: See “Condition.” Cause: TWC considered the funds passed through to TEA as a subaward and reported these amounts in FSRS. However, as TEA is an agency of the State of Texas, it does not meet the definition of a subrecipient. Effect: Failure to submit FFATA subawards timely may lead to noncompliance with federal requirements. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that, as the prime recipient, TWC coordinate with state pass through entities to obtain the information needed for FFATA reporting in order to be compliant with FFATA requirements. Views of responsible officials: In this situation, TWC disagrees with the applicability of the following statement “Transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship” from the Fiscal Year 2024 2 CFR Part 200, Appendix XI Compliance Supplement. According to 2 CFR Part 170, TWC is required to report first-tier subawards. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) which designates TEA as a subrecipient of TWC making TEA a first_x0002_tier grantee of TWC. Neither TWC nor TEA considers this funding a “transfer.” The definition of a pass-through entity according to 2 CFR Part 200, means a recipient or subrecipient that provides a subaward to a subrecipient (including lower tier subrecipients) to carry out a federal program. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) that establishes a relationship that would not be considered a transfer but a first tier subaward. The IAC establishes TWC as a pass-through entity and TEA as a subrecipient per the definitions of these terms in 2 CFR 200.1. Under the requirements for pass-through entities at 2 CFR 200.332, TWC is responsible for monitoring TEA performance under this subaward which may include enforcement under 2 CFR 200.339 and the recovery of costs associated with subrecipient noncompliance. This contractual consideration and possibility of repayment supports that this relationship is one of pass-through and subrecipient, and not a transfer of a federal award to another component of an auditee. As such, subawards made by TEA are in fact second tier subawards for TWC and TWC has no obligation to report them as established in Appendix A 2 CFR Part 170. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) was passed in the vein of openness and transparency to the public as it relates to Federal spending. Reporting on first-tier subawards took effect October 1, 2010. (See OMB Memorandum for Senior Accountable Officials, “Open Government Directive–Federal Spending Transparency and Subaward and Compensation Data Reporting,” August 27, 2010.) FFATA, § 2—Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, directed the Office of Management and Budget to “ensure the existence and operation of a single searchable website, accessible by the public at no cost to access, that includes for each Federal award—(A) the name of the entity receiving the award” and other specified information. (See Public Law 109-282, §2(b).) That website is USASpending.gov. On that website, a search by “recipient” does not have an option to search for “State of Texas.” Rather, the search options individually list the Texas Workforce Commission and other Texas state agencies as separate recipients. When TWC makes an interagency pass-through contract to another state agency, TWC has always treated that other state agency as first-tier subrecipient for FFATA reporting purposes. That decision was based on guidance and interpretation of information available when the FFATA subaward reporting requirements took effect in 2010. TWC has continued in that manner with no audit finding on that approach until now. If TWC adheres to the recommendation made by this finding, the public will no longer have access to the interagency contract amounts through USASpending.gov. The USASpending.gov data presented to the public will instead indicate that the subrecipients of another state agency received subawards directly from TWC, which is inaccurate, will make the USASpending.gov data of the other state agency incomplete, and will cause the USASpending.gov data to be inconsistent with both state agencies’ presentation of those subawards in their respective systems and financial statements. In effect, the USASpending.gov data will represent the subawards of the other state agency as TWC’s subrecipients, while TWC’s systems and financial statements will have no record of those subawards beyond FFATA reporting. Similarly, the other state agency’s systems and financial statements will reflect those subawards as its own, but with no related reflection of that relationship in USASpending.gov. If the public were to submit an open records request about the subawards, the State’s response would be delayed by one state agency collecting data from the other, and inconsistent with the public’s expectation as to which state agency issued and managed those subawards. Those effects seem inconsistent with FFATA’s openness and transparency goals.
Reporting – FFATA Subawards Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Federal Program Title: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Cluster ALN: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 23A55AY000040–01–00 April 1, 2023 – June 30, 2026 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), Texas Workforce (TWC) must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that TWC is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) (Pub. L. No. 109- 282), as amended by Section 6202 of Public Law 110-252, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Condition: As the prime recipient of grant funding, TWC is responsible for reporting first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more in FSRS. Audit procedures included testing 59 subawards made during the fiscal year for FFATA requirements, including subawards made by Texas Education Agency (TEA) using state pass through funds from TWC. TWC passed through $3,000,000 of federal grant funds to TEA who in turn made 33 subawards totaling $2,911,755. Based on Part 3 of the 2024 compliance supplement, transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship. Accordingly, subawards made by TEA should be reported in FSRS by TWC as the prime recipient. The following compliance exceptions were identified: See chart or table in the Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Questioned costs: None Context: See “Condition.” Cause: TWC considered the funds passed through to TEA as a subaward and reported these amounts in FSRS. However, as TEA is an agency of the State of Texas, it does not meet the definition of a subrecipient. Effect: Failure to submit FFATA subawards timely may lead to noncompliance with federal requirements. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that, as the prime recipient, TWC coordinate with state pass through entities to obtain the information needed for FFATA reporting in order to be compliant with FFATA requirements. Views of responsible officials: In this situation, TWC disagrees with the applicability of the following statement “Transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship” from the Fiscal Year 2024 2 CFR Part 200, Appendix XI Compliance Supplement. According to 2 CFR Part 170, TWC is required to report first-tier subawards. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) which designates TEA as a subrecipient of TWC making TEA a first_x0002_tier grantee of TWC. Neither TWC nor TEA considers this funding a “transfer.” The definition of a pass-through entity according to 2 CFR Part 200, means a recipient or subrecipient that provides a subaward to a subrecipient (including lower tier subrecipients) to carry out a federal program. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) that establishes a relationship that would not be considered a transfer but a first tier subaward. The IAC establishes TWC as a pass-through entity and TEA as a subrecipient per the definitions of these terms in 2 CFR 200.1. Under the requirements for pass-through entities at 2 CFR 200.332, TWC is responsible for monitoring TEA performance under this subaward which may include enforcement under 2 CFR 200.339 and the recovery of costs associated with subrecipient noncompliance. This contractual consideration and possibility of repayment supports that this relationship is one of pass-through and subrecipient, and not a transfer of a federal award to another component of an auditee. As such, subawards made by TEA are in fact second tier subawards for TWC and TWC has no obligation to report them as established in Appendix A 2 CFR Part 170. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) was passed in the vein of openness and transparency to the public as it relates to Federal spending. Reporting on first-tier subawards took effect October 1, 2010. (See OMB Memorandum for Senior Accountable Officials, “Open Government Directive–Federal Spending Transparency and Subaward and Compensation Data Reporting,” August 27, 2010.) FFATA, § 2—Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, directed the Office of Management and Budget to “ensure the existence and operation of a single searchable website, accessible by the public at no cost to access, that includes for each Federal award—(A) the name of the entity receiving the award” and other specified information. (See Public Law 109-282, §2(b).) That website is USASpending.gov. On that website, a search by “recipient” does not have an option to search for “State of Texas.” Rather, the search options individually list the Texas Workforce Commission and other Texas state agencies as separate recipients. When TWC makes an interagency pass-through contract to another state agency, TWC has always treated that other state agency as first-tier subrecipient for FFATA reporting purposes. That decision was based on guidance and interpretation of information available when the FFATA subaward reporting requirements took effect in 2010. TWC has continued in that manner with no audit finding on that approach until now. If TWC adheres to the recommendation made by this finding, the public will no longer have access to the interagency contract amounts through USASpending.gov. The USASpending.gov data presented to the public will instead indicate that the subrecipients of another state agency received subawards directly from TWC, which is inaccurate, will make the USASpending.gov data of the other state agency incomplete, and will cause the USASpending.gov data to be inconsistent with both state agencies’ presentation of those subawards in their respective systems and financial statements. In effect, the USASpending.gov data will represent the subawards of the other state agency as TWC’s subrecipients, while TWC’s systems and financial statements will have no record of those subawards beyond FFATA reporting. Similarly, the other state agency’s systems and financial statements will reflect those subawards as its own, but with no related reflection of that relationship in USASpending.gov. If the public were to submit an open records request about the subawards, the State’s response would be delayed by one state agency collecting data from the other, and inconsistent with the public’s expectation as to which state agency issued and managed those subawards. Those effects seem inconsistent with FFATA’s openness and transparency goals.
Reporting – FFATA Subawards Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Federal Program Title: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Cluster ALN: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 23A55AY000040–01–00 April 1, 2023 – June 30, 2026 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), Texas Workforce (TWC) must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that TWC is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) (Pub. L. No. 109- 282), as amended by Section 6202 of Public Law 110-252, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Condition: As the prime recipient of grant funding, TWC is responsible for reporting first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more in FSRS. Audit procedures included testing 59 subawards made during the fiscal year for FFATA requirements, including subawards made by Texas Education Agency (TEA) using state pass through funds from TWC. TWC passed through $3,000,000 of federal grant funds to TEA who in turn made 33 subawards totaling $2,911,755. Based on Part 3 of the 2024 compliance supplement, transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship. Accordingly, subawards made by TEA should be reported in FSRS by TWC as the prime recipient. The following compliance exceptions were identified: See chart or table in the Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Questioned costs: None Context: See “Condition.” Cause: TWC considered the funds passed through to TEA as a subaward and reported these amounts in FSRS. However, as TEA is an agency of the State of Texas, it does not meet the definition of a subrecipient. Effect: Failure to submit FFATA subawards timely may lead to noncompliance with federal requirements. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that, as the prime recipient, TWC coordinate with state pass through entities to obtain the information needed for FFATA reporting in order to be compliant with FFATA requirements. Views of responsible officials: In this situation, TWC disagrees with the applicability of the following statement “Transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship” from the Fiscal Year 2024 2 CFR Part 200, Appendix XI Compliance Supplement. According to 2 CFR Part 170, TWC is required to report first-tier subawards. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) which designates TEA as a subrecipient of TWC making TEA a first_x0002_tier grantee of TWC. Neither TWC nor TEA considers this funding a “transfer.” The definition of a pass-through entity according to 2 CFR Part 200, means a recipient or subrecipient that provides a subaward to a subrecipient (including lower tier subrecipients) to carry out a federal program. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) that establishes a relationship that would not be considered a transfer but a first tier subaward. The IAC establishes TWC as a pass-through entity and TEA as a subrecipient per the definitions of these terms in 2 CFR 200.1. Under the requirements for pass-through entities at 2 CFR 200.332, TWC is responsible for monitoring TEA performance under this subaward which may include enforcement under 2 CFR 200.339 and the recovery of costs associated with subrecipient noncompliance. This contractual consideration and possibility of repayment supports that this relationship is one of pass-through and subrecipient, and not a transfer of a federal award to another component of an auditee. As such, subawards made by TEA are in fact second tier subawards for TWC and TWC has no obligation to report them as established in Appendix A 2 CFR Part 170. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) was passed in the vein of openness and transparency to the public as it relates to Federal spending. Reporting on first-tier subawards took effect October 1, 2010. (See OMB Memorandum for Senior Accountable Officials, “Open Government Directive–Federal Spending Transparency and Subaward and Compensation Data Reporting,” August 27, 2010.) FFATA, § 2—Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, directed the Office of Management and Budget to “ensure the existence and operation of a single searchable website, accessible by the public at no cost to access, that includes for each Federal award—(A) the name of the entity receiving the award” and other specified information. (See Public Law 109-282, §2(b).) That website is USASpending.gov. On that website, a search by “recipient” does not have an option to search for “State of Texas.” Rather, the search options individually list the Texas Workforce Commission and other Texas state agencies as separate recipients. When TWC makes an interagency pass-through contract to another state agency, TWC has always treated that other state agency as first-tier subrecipient for FFATA reporting purposes. That decision was based on guidance and interpretation of information available when the FFATA subaward reporting requirements took effect in 2010. TWC has continued in that manner with no audit finding on that approach until now. If TWC adheres to the recommendation made by this finding, the public will no longer have access to the interagency contract amounts through USASpending.gov. The USASpending.gov data presented to the public will instead indicate that the subrecipients of another state agency received subawards directly from TWC, which is inaccurate, will make the USASpending.gov data of the other state agency incomplete, and will cause the USASpending.gov data to be inconsistent with both state agencies’ presentation of those subawards in their respective systems and financial statements. In effect, the USASpending.gov data will represent the subawards of the other state agency as TWC’s subrecipients, while TWC’s systems and financial statements will have no record of those subawards beyond FFATA reporting. Similarly, the other state agency’s systems and financial statements will reflect those subawards as its own, but with no related reflection of that relationship in USASpending.gov. If the public were to submit an open records request about the subawards, the State’s response would be delayed by one state agency collecting data from the other, and inconsistent with the public’s expectation as to which state agency issued and managed those subawards. Those effects seem inconsistent with FFATA’s openness and transparency goals.
Reporting – FFATA Subawards Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Federal Program Title: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Cluster ALN: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 23A55AY000040–01–00 April 1, 2023 – June 30, 2026 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), Texas Workforce (TWC) must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that TWC is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) (Pub. L. No. 109- 282), as amended by Section 6202 of Public Law 110-252, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Condition: As the prime recipient of grant funding, TWC is responsible for reporting first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more in FSRS. Audit procedures included testing 59 subawards made during the fiscal year for FFATA requirements, including subawards made by Texas Education Agency (TEA) using state pass through funds from TWC. TWC passed through $3,000,000 of federal grant funds to TEA who in turn made 33 subawards totaling $2,911,755. Based on Part 3 of the 2024 compliance supplement, transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship. Accordingly, subawards made by TEA should be reported in FSRS by TWC as the prime recipient. The following compliance exceptions were identified: See chart or table in the Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Questioned costs: None Context: See “Condition.” Cause: TWC considered the funds passed through to TEA as a subaward and reported these amounts in FSRS. However, as TEA is an agency of the State of Texas, it does not meet the definition of a subrecipient. Effect: Failure to submit FFATA subawards timely may lead to noncompliance with federal requirements. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that, as the prime recipient, TWC coordinate with state pass through entities to obtain the information needed for FFATA reporting in order to be compliant with FFATA requirements. Views of responsible officials: In this situation, TWC disagrees with the applicability of the following statement “Transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship” from the Fiscal Year 2024 2 CFR Part 200, Appendix XI Compliance Supplement. According to 2 CFR Part 170, TWC is required to report first-tier subawards. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) which designates TEA as a subrecipient of TWC making TEA a first_x0002_tier grantee of TWC. Neither TWC nor TEA considers this funding a “transfer.” The definition of a pass-through entity according to 2 CFR Part 200, means a recipient or subrecipient that provides a subaward to a subrecipient (including lower tier subrecipients) to carry out a federal program. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) that establishes a relationship that would not be considered a transfer but a first tier subaward. The IAC establishes TWC as a pass-through entity and TEA as a subrecipient per the definitions of these terms in 2 CFR 200.1. Under the requirements for pass-through entities at 2 CFR 200.332, TWC is responsible for monitoring TEA performance under this subaward which may include enforcement under 2 CFR 200.339 and the recovery of costs associated with subrecipient noncompliance. This contractual consideration and possibility of repayment supports that this relationship is one of pass-through and subrecipient, and not a transfer of a federal award to another component of an auditee. As such, subawards made by TEA are in fact second tier subawards for TWC and TWC has no obligation to report them as established in Appendix A 2 CFR Part 170. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) was passed in the vein of openness and transparency to the public as it relates to Federal spending. Reporting on first-tier subawards took effect October 1, 2010. (See OMB Memorandum for Senior Accountable Officials, “Open Government Directive–Federal Spending Transparency and Subaward and Compensation Data Reporting,” August 27, 2010.) FFATA, § 2—Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, directed the Office of Management and Budget to “ensure the existence and operation of a single searchable website, accessible by the public at no cost to access, that includes for each Federal award—(A) the name of the entity receiving the award” and other specified information. (See Public Law 109-282, §2(b).) That website is USASpending.gov. On that website, a search by “recipient” does not have an option to search for “State of Texas.” Rather, the search options individually list the Texas Workforce Commission and other Texas state agencies as separate recipients. When TWC makes an interagency pass-through contract to another state agency, TWC has always treated that other state agency as first-tier subrecipient for FFATA reporting purposes. That decision was based on guidance and interpretation of information available when the FFATA subaward reporting requirements took effect in 2010. TWC has continued in that manner with no audit finding on that approach until now. If TWC adheres to the recommendation made by this finding, the public will no longer have access to the interagency contract amounts through USASpending.gov. The USASpending.gov data presented to the public will instead indicate that the subrecipients of another state agency received subawards directly from TWC, which is inaccurate, will make the USASpending.gov data of the other state agency incomplete, and will cause the USASpending.gov data to be inconsistent with both state agencies’ presentation of those subawards in their respective systems and financial statements. In effect, the USASpending.gov data will represent the subawards of the other state agency as TWC’s subrecipients, while TWC’s systems and financial statements will have no record of those subawards beyond FFATA reporting. Similarly, the other state agency’s systems and financial statements will reflect those subawards as its own, but with no related reflection of that relationship in USASpending.gov. If the public were to submit an open records request about the subawards, the State’s response would be delayed by one state agency collecting data from the other, and inconsistent with the public’s expectation as to which state agency issued and managed those subawards. Those effects seem inconsistent with FFATA’s openness and transparency goals.
2024-001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed-through the Texas Department of State Health Services FFAL #93.958 Mental Health Block Grant (Federal Award) (Contract numbers HHS000502700001, HHS001108400004, HHS001204800001, and H79SM085571-01) Health Community Collaboratives (State Award – No FFAL) Allowable Costs Cash Management Non-Material Noncompliance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Criteria: Section 2 CFR 200.414 establishes that recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). The recipient or subrecipient is authorized to determine the appropriate rate up to this limit. When applying the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either direct or indirect costs and may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de minimis rate does not require documentation to justify its use and may be used indefinitely. Once elected, the recipient or subrecipient must use the de minimis rate for all Federal awards until the recipient or subrecipient chooses to receive a negotiated rate. Per 2 CFR 200.1, modified total direct cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs. TxGMS follow this same guidance. Condition: The Center did not exclude charges for patient care when calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC). Cause: Due to the Center improperly calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC), an indirect rate other than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate elected by the Center and allowed under the Uniform Guidance and TxGMS was being charged to and reimbursed by the federal and state grants. Effect: Insufficient procedures and internal controls over cash management resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: Mental Health Block Grant – Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $5,139. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $39,283. Healthy Community Collaboratives - Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $26,426. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $88,200. Context/Sampling: Mental Health Block Grant – A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $843,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $5,850,000. Healthy Community Collaboratives - A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $949,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $2,750,000. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Center establish and adhere to policies and procedures, including internal controls, to ensure compliance with cash management requirements as established by 2 CFR 200.414 and 2 CFR 200.1 and TxGMS. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
2024-001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed-through the Texas Department of State Health Services FFAL #93.958 Mental Health Block Grant (Federal Award) (Contract numbers HHS000502700001, HHS001108400004, HHS001204800001, and H79SM085571-01) Health Community Collaboratives (State Award – No FFAL) Allowable Costs Cash Management Non-Material Noncompliance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Criteria: Section 2 CFR 200.414 establishes that recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). The recipient or subrecipient is authorized to determine the appropriate rate up to this limit. When applying the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either direct or indirect costs and may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de minimis rate does not require documentation to justify its use and may be used indefinitely. Once elected, the recipient or subrecipient must use the de minimis rate for all Federal awards until the recipient or subrecipient chooses to receive a negotiated rate. Per 2 CFR 200.1, modified total direct cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs. TxGMS follow this same guidance. Condition: The Center did not exclude charges for patient care when calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC). Cause: Due to the Center improperly calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC), an indirect rate other than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate elected by the Center and allowed under the Uniform Guidance and TxGMS was being charged to and reimbursed by the federal and state grants. Effect: Insufficient procedures and internal controls over cash management resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: Mental Health Block Grant – Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $5,139. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $39,283. Healthy Community Collaboratives - Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $26,426. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $88,200. Context/Sampling: Mental Health Block Grant – A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $843,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $5,850,000. Healthy Community Collaboratives - A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $949,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $2,750,000. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Center establish and adhere to policies and procedures, including internal controls, to ensure compliance with cash management requirements as established by 2 CFR 200.414 and 2 CFR 200.1 and TxGMS. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
2024-001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed-through the Texas Department of State Health Services FFAL #93.958 Mental Health Block Grant (Federal Award) (Contract numbers HHS000502700001, HHS001108400004, HHS001204800001, and H79SM085571-01) Health Community Collaboratives (State Award – No FFAL) Allowable Costs Cash Management Non-Material Noncompliance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Criteria: Section 2 CFR 200.414 establishes that recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). The recipient or subrecipient is authorized to determine the appropriate rate up to this limit. When applying the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either direct or indirect costs and may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de minimis rate does not require documentation to justify its use and may be used indefinitely. Once elected, the recipient or subrecipient must use the de minimis rate for all Federal awards until the recipient or subrecipient chooses to receive a negotiated rate. Per 2 CFR 200.1, modified total direct cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs. TxGMS follow this same guidance. Condition: The Center did not exclude charges for patient care when calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC). Cause: Due to the Center improperly calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC), an indirect rate other than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate elected by the Center and allowed under the Uniform Guidance and TxGMS was being charged to and reimbursed by the federal and state grants. Effect: Insufficient procedures and internal controls over cash management resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: Mental Health Block Grant – Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $5,139. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $39,283. Healthy Community Collaboratives - Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $26,426. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $88,200. Context/Sampling: Mental Health Block Grant – A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $843,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $5,850,000. Healthy Community Collaboratives - A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $949,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $2,750,000. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Center establish and adhere to policies and procedures, including internal controls, to ensure compliance with cash management requirements as established by 2 CFR 200.414 and 2 CFR 200.1 and TxGMS. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
2024-001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed-through the Texas Department of State Health Services FFAL #93.958 Mental Health Block Grant (Federal Award) (Contract numbers HHS000502700001, HHS001108400004, HHS001204800001, and H79SM085571-01) Health Community Collaboratives (State Award – No FFAL) Allowable Costs Cash Management Non-Material Noncompliance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Criteria: Section 2 CFR 200.414 establishes that recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). The recipient or subrecipient is authorized to determine the appropriate rate up to this limit. When applying the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either direct or indirect costs and may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de minimis rate does not require documentation to justify its use and may be used indefinitely. Once elected, the recipient or subrecipient must use the de minimis rate for all Federal awards until the recipient or subrecipient chooses to receive a negotiated rate. Per 2 CFR 200.1, modified total direct cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs. TxGMS follow this same guidance. Condition: The Center did not exclude charges for patient care when calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC). Cause: Due to the Center improperly calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC), an indirect rate other than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate elected by the Center and allowed under the Uniform Guidance and TxGMS was being charged to and reimbursed by the federal and state grants. Effect: Insufficient procedures and internal controls over cash management resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: Mental Health Block Grant – Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $5,139. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $39,283. Healthy Community Collaboratives - Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $26,426. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $88,200. Context/Sampling: Mental Health Block Grant – A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $843,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $5,850,000. Healthy Community Collaboratives - A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $949,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $2,750,000. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Center establish and adhere to policies and procedures, including internal controls, to ensure compliance with cash management requirements as established by 2 CFR 200.414 and 2 CFR 200.1 and TxGMS. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
2024-001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed-through the Texas Department of State Health Services FFAL #93.958 Mental Health Block Grant (Federal Award) (Contract numbers HHS000502700001, HHS001108400004, HHS001204800001, and H79SM085571-01) Health Community Collaboratives (State Award – No FFAL) Allowable Costs Cash Management Non-Material Noncompliance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Criteria: Section 2 CFR 200.414 establishes that recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). The recipient or subrecipient is authorized to determine the appropriate rate up to this limit. When applying the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either direct or indirect costs and may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de minimis rate does not require documentation to justify its use and may be used indefinitely. Once elected, the recipient or subrecipient must use the de minimis rate for all Federal awards until the recipient or subrecipient chooses to receive a negotiated rate. Per 2 CFR 200.1, modified total direct cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs. TxGMS follow this same guidance. Condition: The Center did not exclude charges for patient care when calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC). Cause: Due to the Center improperly calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC), an indirect rate other than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate elected by the Center and allowed under the Uniform Guidance and TxGMS was being charged to and reimbursed by the federal and state grants. Effect: Insufficient procedures and internal controls over cash management resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: Mental Health Block Grant – Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $5,139. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $39,283. Healthy Community Collaboratives - Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $26,426. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $88,200. Context/Sampling: Mental Health Block Grant – A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $843,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $5,850,000. Healthy Community Collaboratives - A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $949,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $2,750,000. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Center establish and adhere to policies and procedures, including internal controls, to ensure compliance with cash management requirements as established by 2 CFR 200.414 and 2 CFR 200.1 and TxGMS. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
2024-001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed-through the Texas Department of State Health Services FFAL #93.958 Mental Health Block Grant (Federal Award) (Contract numbers HHS000502700001, HHS001108400004, HHS001204800001, and H79SM085571-01) Health Community Collaboratives (State Award – No FFAL) Allowable Costs Cash Management Non-Material Noncompliance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Criteria: Section 2 CFR 200.414 establishes that recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). The recipient or subrecipient is authorized to determine the appropriate rate up to this limit. When applying the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either direct or indirect costs and may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de minimis rate does not require documentation to justify its use and may be used indefinitely. Once elected, the recipient or subrecipient must use the de minimis rate for all Federal awards until the recipient or subrecipient chooses to receive a negotiated rate. Per 2 CFR 200.1, modified total direct cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs. TxGMS follow this same guidance. Condition: The Center did not exclude charges for patient care when calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC). Cause: Due to the Center improperly calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC), an indirect rate other than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate elected by the Center and allowed under the Uniform Guidance and TxGMS was being charged to and reimbursed by the federal and state grants. Effect: Insufficient procedures and internal controls over cash management resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: Mental Health Block Grant – Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $5,139. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $39,283. Healthy Community Collaboratives - Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $26,426. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $88,200. Context/Sampling: Mental Health Block Grant – A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $843,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $5,850,000. Healthy Community Collaboratives - A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $949,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $2,750,000. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Center establish and adhere to policies and procedures, including internal controls, to ensure compliance with cash management requirements as established by 2 CFR 200.414 and 2 CFR 200.1 and TxGMS. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
Reporting – FFATA Subawards Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Federal Program Title: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Cluster ALN: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 23A55AY000040–01–00 April 1, 2023 – June 30, 2026 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), Texas Workforce (TWC) must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that TWC is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) (Pub. L. No. 109- 282), as amended by Section 6202 of Public Law 110-252, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Condition: As the prime recipient of grant funding, TWC is responsible for reporting first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more in FSRS. Audit procedures included testing 59 subawards made during the fiscal year for FFATA requirements, including subawards made by Texas Education Agency (TEA) using state pass through funds from TWC. TWC passed through $3,000,000 of federal grant funds to TEA who in turn made 33 subawards totaling $2,911,755. Based on Part 3 of the 2024 compliance supplement, transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship. Accordingly, subawards made by TEA should be reported in FSRS by TWC as the prime recipient. The following compliance exceptions were identified: See chart or table in the Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Questioned costs: None Context: See “Condition.” Cause: TWC considered the funds passed through to TEA as a subaward and reported these amounts in FSRS. However, as TEA is an agency of the State of Texas, it does not meet the definition of a subrecipient. Effect: Failure to submit FFATA subawards timely may lead to noncompliance with federal requirements. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that, as the prime recipient, TWC coordinate with state pass through entities to obtain the information needed for FFATA reporting in order to be compliant with FFATA requirements. Views of responsible officials: In this situation, TWC disagrees with the applicability of the following statement “Transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship” from the Fiscal Year 2024 2 CFR Part 200, Appendix XI Compliance Supplement. According to 2 CFR Part 170, TWC is required to report first-tier subawards. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) which designates TEA as a subrecipient of TWC making TEA a first_x0002_tier grantee of TWC. Neither TWC nor TEA considers this funding a “transfer.” The definition of a pass-through entity according to 2 CFR Part 200, means a recipient or subrecipient that provides a subaward to a subrecipient (including lower tier subrecipients) to carry out a federal program. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) that establishes a relationship that would not be considered a transfer but a first tier subaward. The IAC establishes TWC as a pass-through entity and TEA as a subrecipient per the definitions of these terms in 2 CFR 200.1. Under the requirements for pass-through entities at 2 CFR 200.332, TWC is responsible for monitoring TEA performance under this subaward which may include enforcement under 2 CFR 200.339 and the recovery of costs associated with subrecipient noncompliance. This contractual consideration and possibility of repayment supports that this relationship is one of pass-through and subrecipient, and not a transfer of a federal award to another component of an auditee. As such, subawards made by TEA are in fact second tier subawards for TWC and TWC has no obligation to report them as established in Appendix A 2 CFR Part 170. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) was passed in the vein of openness and transparency to the public as it relates to Federal spending. Reporting on first-tier subawards took effect October 1, 2010. (See OMB Memorandum for Senior Accountable Officials, “Open Government Directive–Federal Spending Transparency and Subaward and Compensation Data Reporting,” August 27, 2010.) FFATA, § 2—Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, directed the Office of Management and Budget to “ensure the existence and operation of a single searchable website, accessible by the public at no cost to access, that includes for each Federal award—(A) the name of the entity receiving the award” and other specified information. (See Public Law 109-282, §2(b).) That website is USASpending.gov. On that website, a search by “recipient” does not have an option to search for “State of Texas.” Rather, the search options individually list the Texas Workforce Commission and other Texas state agencies as separate recipients. When TWC makes an interagency pass-through contract to another state agency, TWC has always treated that other state agency as first-tier subrecipient for FFATA reporting purposes. That decision was based on guidance and interpretation of information available when the FFATA subaward reporting requirements took effect in 2010. TWC has continued in that manner with no audit finding on that approach until now. If TWC adheres to the recommendation made by this finding, the public will no longer have access to the interagency contract amounts through USASpending.gov. The USASpending.gov data presented to the public will instead indicate that the subrecipients of another state agency received subawards directly from TWC, which is inaccurate, will make the USASpending.gov data of the other state agency incomplete, and will cause the USASpending.gov data to be inconsistent with both state agencies’ presentation of those subawards in their respective systems and financial statements. In effect, the USASpending.gov data will represent the subawards of the other state agency as TWC’s subrecipients, while TWC’s systems and financial statements will have no record of those subawards beyond FFATA reporting. Similarly, the other state agency’s systems and financial statements will reflect those subawards as its own, but with no related reflection of that relationship in USASpending.gov. If the public were to submit an open records request about the subawards, the State’s response would be delayed by one state agency collecting data from the other, and inconsistent with the public’s expectation as to which state agency issued and managed those subawards. Those effects seem inconsistent with FFATA’s openness and transparency goals.
Reporting – FFATA Subawards Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Federal Program Title: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Cluster ALN: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 23A55AY000040–01–00 April 1, 2023 – June 30, 2026 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), Texas Workforce (TWC) must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that TWC is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) (Pub. L. No. 109- 282), as amended by Section 6202 of Public Law 110-252, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Condition: As the prime recipient of grant funding, TWC is responsible for reporting first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more in FSRS. Audit procedures included testing 59 subawards made during the fiscal year for FFATA requirements, including subawards made by Texas Education Agency (TEA) using state pass through funds from TWC. TWC passed through $3,000,000 of federal grant funds to TEA who in turn made 33 subawards totaling $2,911,755. Based on Part 3 of the 2024 compliance supplement, transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship. Accordingly, subawards made by TEA should be reported in FSRS by TWC as the prime recipient. The following compliance exceptions were identified: See chart or table in the Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Questioned costs: None Context: See “Condition.” Cause: TWC considered the funds passed through to TEA as a subaward and reported these amounts in FSRS. However, as TEA is an agency of the State of Texas, it does not meet the definition of a subrecipient. Effect: Failure to submit FFATA subawards timely may lead to noncompliance with federal requirements. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that, as the prime recipient, TWC coordinate with state pass through entities to obtain the information needed for FFATA reporting in order to be compliant with FFATA requirements. Views of responsible officials: In this situation, TWC disagrees with the applicability of the following statement “Transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship” from the Fiscal Year 2024 2 CFR Part 200, Appendix XI Compliance Supplement. According to 2 CFR Part 170, TWC is required to report first-tier subawards. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) which designates TEA as a subrecipient of TWC making TEA a first_x0002_tier grantee of TWC. Neither TWC nor TEA considers this funding a “transfer.” The definition of a pass-through entity according to 2 CFR Part 200, means a recipient or subrecipient that provides a subaward to a subrecipient (including lower tier subrecipients) to carry out a federal program. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) that establishes a relationship that would not be considered a transfer but a first tier subaward. The IAC establishes TWC as a pass-through entity and TEA as a subrecipient per the definitions of these terms in 2 CFR 200.1. Under the requirements for pass-through entities at 2 CFR 200.332, TWC is responsible for monitoring TEA performance under this subaward which may include enforcement under 2 CFR 200.339 and the recovery of costs associated with subrecipient noncompliance. This contractual consideration and possibility of repayment supports that this relationship is one of pass-through and subrecipient, and not a transfer of a federal award to another component of an auditee. As such, subawards made by TEA are in fact second tier subawards for TWC and TWC has no obligation to report them as established in Appendix A 2 CFR Part 170. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) was passed in the vein of openness and transparency to the public as it relates to Federal spending. Reporting on first-tier subawards took effect October 1, 2010. (See OMB Memorandum for Senior Accountable Officials, “Open Government Directive–Federal Spending Transparency and Subaward and Compensation Data Reporting,” August 27, 2010.) FFATA, § 2—Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, directed the Office of Management and Budget to “ensure the existence and operation of a single searchable website, accessible by the public at no cost to access, that includes for each Federal award—(A) the name of the entity receiving the award” and other specified information. (See Public Law 109-282, §2(b).) That website is USASpending.gov. On that website, a search by “recipient” does not have an option to search for “State of Texas.” Rather, the search options individually list the Texas Workforce Commission and other Texas state agencies as separate recipients. When TWC makes an interagency pass-through contract to another state agency, TWC has always treated that other state agency as first-tier subrecipient for FFATA reporting purposes. That decision was based on guidance and interpretation of information available when the FFATA subaward reporting requirements took effect in 2010. TWC has continued in that manner with no audit finding on that approach until now. If TWC adheres to the recommendation made by this finding, the public will no longer have access to the interagency contract amounts through USASpending.gov. The USASpending.gov data presented to the public will instead indicate that the subrecipients of another state agency received subawards directly from TWC, which is inaccurate, will make the USASpending.gov data of the other state agency incomplete, and will cause the USASpending.gov data to be inconsistent with both state agencies’ presentation of those subawards in their respective systems and financial statements. In effect, the USASpending.gov data will represent the subawards of the other state agency as TWC’s subrecipients, while TWC’s systems and financial statements will have no record of those subawards beyond FFATA reporting. Similarly, the other state agency’s systems and financial statements will reflect those subawards as its own, but with no related reflection of that relationship in USASpending.gov. If the public were to submit an open records request about the subawards, the State’s response would be delayed by one state agency collecting data from the other, and inconsistent with the public’s expectation as to which state agency issued and managed those subawards. Those effects seem inconsistent with FFATA’s openness and transparency goals.
Reporting – FFATA Subawards Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Federal Program Title: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Cluster ALN: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 23A55AY000040–01–00 April 1, 2023 – June 30, 2026 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), Texas Workforce (TWC) must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that TWC is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) (Pub. L. No. 109- 282), as amended by Section 6202 of Public Law 110-252, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Condition: As the prime recipient of grant funding, TWC is responsible for reporting first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more in FSRS. Audit procedures included testing 59 subawards made during the fiscal year for FFATA requirements, including subawards made by Texas Education Agency (TEA) using state pass through funds from TWC. TWC passed through $3,000,000 of federal grant funds to TEA who in turn made 33 subawards totaling $2,911,755. Based on Part 3 of the 2024 compliance supplement, transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship. Accordingly, subawards made by TEA should be reported in FSRS by TWC as the prime recipient. The following compliance exceptions were identified: See chart or table in the Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Questioned costs: None Context: See “Condition.” Cause: TWC considered the funds passed through to TEA as a subaward and reported these amounts in FSRS. However, as TEA is an agency of the State of Texas, it does not meet the definition of a subrecipient. Effect: Failure to submit FFATA subawards timely may lead to noncompliance with federal requirements. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that, as the prime recipient, TWC coordinate with state pass through entities to obtain the information needed for FFATA reporting in order to be compliant with FFATA requirements. Views of responsible officials: In this situation, TWC disagrees with the applicability of the following statement “Transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship” from the Fiscal Year 2024 2 CFR Part 200, Appendix XI Compliance Supplement. According to 2 CFR Part 170, TWC is required to report first-tier subawards. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) which designates TEA as a subrecipient of TWC making TEA a first_x0002_tier grantee of TWC. Neither TWC nor TEA considers this funding a “transfer.” The definition of a pass-through entity according to 2 CFR Part 200, means a recipient or subrecipient that provides a subaward to a subrecipient (including lower tier subrecipients) to carry out a federal program. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) that establishes a relationship that would not be considered a transfer but a first tier subaward. The IAC establishes TWC as a pass-through entity and TEA as a subrecipient per the definitions of these terms in 2 CFR 200.1. Under the requirements for pass-through entities at 2 CFR 200.332, TWC is responsible for monitoring TEA performance under this subaward which may include enforcement under 2 CFR 200.339 and the recovery of costs associated with subrecipient noncompliance. This contractual consideration and possibility of repayment supports that this relationship is one of pass-through and subrecipient, and not a transfer of a federal award to another component of an auditee. As such, subawards made by TEA are in fact second tier subawards for TWC and TWC has no obligation to report them as established in Appendix A 2 CFR Part 170. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) was passed in the vein of openness and transparency to the public as it relates to Federal spending. Reporting on first-tier subawards took effect October 1, 2010. (See OMB Memorandum for Senior Accountable Officials, “Open Government Directive–Federal Spending Transparency and Subaward and Compensation Data Reporting,” August 27, 2010.) FFATA, § 2—Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, directed the Office of Management and Budget to “ensure the existence and operation of a single searchable website, accessible by the public at no cost to access, that includes for each Federal award—(A) the name of the entity receiving the award” and other specified information. (See Public Law 109-282, §2(b).) That website is USASpending.gov. On that website, a search by “recipient” does not have an option to search for “State of Texas.” Rather, the search options individually list the Texas Workforce Commission and other Texas state agencies as separate recipients. When TWC makes an interagency pass-through contract to another state agency, TWC has always treated that other state agency as first-tier subrecipient for FFATA reporting purposes. That decision was based on guidance and interpretation of information available when the FFATA subaward reporting requirements took effect in 2010. TWC has continued in that manner with no audit finding on that approach until now. If TWC adheres to the recommendation made by this finding, the public will no longer have access to the interagency contract amounts through USASpending.gov. The USASpending.gov data presented to the public will instead indicate that the subrecipients of another state agency received subawards directly from TWC, which is inaccurate, will make the USASpending.gov data of the other state agency incomplete, and will cause the USASpending.gov data to be inconsistent with both state agencies’ presentation of those subawards in their respective systems and financial statements. In effect, the USASpending.gov data will represent the subawards of the other state agency as TWC’s subrecipients, while TWC’s systems and financial statements will have no record of those subawards beyond FFATA reporting. Similarly, the other state agency’s systems and financial statements will reflect those subawards as its own, but with no related reflection of that relationship in USASpending.gov. If the public were to submit an open records request about the subawards, the State’s response would be delayed by one state agency collecting data from the other, and inconsistent with the public’s expectation as to which state agency issued and managed those subawards. Those effects seem inconsistent with FFATA’s openness and transparency goals.
Reporting – FFATA Subawards Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Federal Program Title: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Cluster ALN: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 23A55AY000040–01–00 April 1, 2023 – June 30, 2026 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), Texas Workforce (TWC) must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that TWC is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) (Pub. L. No. 109- 282), as amended by Section 6202 of Public Law 110-252, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Condition: As the prime recipient of grant funding, TWC is responsible for reporting first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more in FSRS. Audit procedures included testing 59 subawards made during the fiscal year for FFATA requirements, including subawards made by Texas Education Agency (TEA) using state pass through funds from TWC. TWC passed through $3,000,000 of federal grant funds to TEA who in turn made 33 subawards totaling $2,911,755. Based on Part 3 of the 2024 compliance supplement, transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship. Accordingly, subawards made by TEA should be reported in FSRS by TWC as the prime recipient. The following compliance exceptions were identified: See chart or table in the Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Questioned costs: None Context: See “Condition.” Cause: TWC considered the funds passed through to TEA as a subaward and reported these amounts in FSRS. However, as TEA is an agency of the State of Texas, it does not meet the definition of a subrecipient. Effect: Failure to submit FFATA subawards timely may lead to noncompliance with federal requirements. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that, as the prime recipient, TWC coordinate with state pass through entities to obtain the information needed for FFATA reporting in order to be compliant with FFATA requirements. Views of responsible officials: In this situation, TWC disagrees with the applicability of the following statement “Transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship” from the Fiscal Year 2024 2 CFR Part 200, Appendix XI Compliance Supplement. According to 2 CFR Part 170, TWC is required to report first-tier subawards. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) which designates TEA as a subrecipient of TWC making TEA a first_x0002_tier grantee of TWC. Neither TWC nor TEA considers this funding a “transfer.” The definition of a pass-through entity according to 2 CFR Part 200, means a recipient or subrecipient that provides a subaward to a subrecipient (including lower tier subrecipients) to carry out a federal program. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) that establishes a relationship that would not be considered a transfer but a first tier subaward. The IAC establishes TWC as a pass-through entity and TEA as a subrecipient per the definitions of these terms in 2 CFR 200.1. Under the requirements for pass-through entities at 2 CFR 200.332, TWC is responsible for monitoring TEA performance under this subaward which may include enforcement under 2 CFR 200.339 and the recovery of costs associated with subrecipient noncompliance. This contractual consideration and possibility of repayment supports that this relationship is one of pass-through and subrecipient, and not a transfer of a federal award to another component of an auditee. As such, subawards made by TEA are in fact second tier subawards for TWC and TWC has no obligation to report them as established in Appendix A 2 CFR Part 170. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) was passed in the vein of openness and transparency to the public as it relates to Federal spending. Reporting on first-tier subawards took effect October 1, 2010. (See OMB Memorandum for Senior Accountable Officials, “Open Government Directive–Federal Spending Transparency and Subaward and Compensation Data Reporting,” August 27, 2010.) FFATA, § 2—Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, directed the Office of Management and Budget to “ensure the existence and operation of a single searchable website, accessible by the public at no cost to access, that includes for each Federal award—(A) the name of the entity receiving the award” and other specified information. (See Public Law 109-282, §2(b).) That website is USASpending.gov. On that website, a search by “recipient” does not have an option to search for “State of Texas.” Rather, the search options individually list the Texas Workforce Commission and other Texas state agencies as separate recipients. When TWC makes an interagency pass-through contract to another state agency, TWC has always treated that other state agency as first-tier subrecipient for FFATA reporting purposes. That decision was based on guidance and interpretation of information available when the FFATA subaward reporting requirements took effect in 2010. TWC has continued in that manner with no audit finding on that approach until now. If TWC adheres to the recommendation made by this finding, the public will no longer have access to the interagency contract amounts through USASpending.gov. The USASpending.gov data presented to the public will instead indicate that the subrecipients of another state agency received subawards directly from TWC, which is inaccurate, will make the USASpending.gov data of the other state agency incomplete, and will cause the USASpending.gov data to be inconsistent with both state agencies’ presentation of those subawards in their respective systems and financial statements. In effect, the USASpending.gov data will represent the subawards of the other state agency as TWC’s subrecipients, while TWC’s systems and financial statements will have no record of those subawards beyond FFATA reporting. Similarly, the other state agency’s systems and financial statements will reflect those subawards as its own, but with no related reflection of that relationship in USASpending.gov. If the public were to submit an open records request about the subawards, the State’s response would be delayed by one state agency collecting data from the other, and inconsistent with the public’s expectation as to which state agency issued and managed those subawards. Those effects seem inconsistent with FFATA’s openness and transparency goals.
Reporting – FFATA Subawards Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Federal Program Title: Workforce Innovation and Opportunity Act Cluster ALN: 17.258, 17.259, 17.278 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 23A55AY000040–01–00 April 1, 2023 – June 30, 2026 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), Texas Workforce (TWC) must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that TWC is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Under the requirements of the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) (Pub. L. No. 109- 282), as amended by Section 6202 of Public Law 110-252, recipients (i.e., direct recipients) of grants or cooperative agreements are required to report first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) no later than the last day of the month following the month in which the subaward/subaward amendment obligation was made or the subcontract award/subcontract modification was made. Condition: As the prime recipient of grant funding, TWC is responsible for reporting first-tier subawards of $30,000 or more in FSRS. Audit procedures included testing 59 subawards made during the fiscal year for FFATA requirements, including subawards made by Texas Education Agency (TEA) using state pass through funds from TWC. TWC passed through $3,000,000 of federal grant funds to TEA who in turn made 33 subawards totaling $2,911,755. Based on Part 3 of the 2024 compliance supplement, transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship. Accordingly, subawards made by TEA should be reported in FSRS by TWC as the prime recipient. The following compliance exceptions were identified: See chart or table in the Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs. Questioned costs: None Context: See “Condition.” Cause: TWC considered the funds passed through to TEA as a subaward and reported these amounts in FSRS. However, as TEA is an agency of the State of Texas, it does not meet the definition of a subrecipient. Effect: Failure to submit FFATA subawards timely may lead to noncompliance with federal requirements. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that, as the prime recipient, TWC coordinate with state pass through entities to obtain the information needed for FFATA reporting in order to be compliant with FFATA requirements. Views of responsible officials: In this situation, TWC disagrees with the applicability of the following statement “Transfers of federal awards to another component of the same auditee under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart F, do not constitute a subrecipient or contractor relationship” from the Fiscal Year 2024 2 CFR Part 200, Appendix XI Compliance Supplement. According to 2 CFR Part 170, TWC is required to report first-tier subawards. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) which designates TEA as a subrecipient of TWC making TEA a first_x0002_tier grantee of TWC. Neither TWC nor TEA considers this funding a “transfer.” The definition of a pass-through entity according to 2 CFR Part 200, means a recipient or subrecipient that provides a subaward to a subrecipient (including lower tier subrecipients) to carry out a federal program. In the case of TWC and TEA, there is an Interagency Agreement Contract (IAC) that establishes a relationship that would not be considered a transfer but a first tier subaward. The IAC establishes TWC as a pass-through entity and TEA as a subrecipient per the definitions of these terms in 2 CFR 200.1. Under the requirements for pass-through entities at 2 CFR 200.332, TWC is responsible for monitoring TEA performance under this subaward which may include enforcement under 2 CFR 200.339 and the recovery of costs associated with subrecipient noncompliance. This contractual consideration and possibility of repayment supports that this relationship is one of pass-through and subrecipient, and not a transfer of a federal award to another component of an auditee. As such, subawards made by TEA are in fact second tier subawards for TWC and TWC has no obligation to report them as established in Appendix A 2 CFR Part 170. The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act of 2006 (FFATA) was passed in the vein of openness and transparency to the public as it relates to Federal spending. Reporting on first-tier subawards took effect October 1, 2010. (See OMB Memorandum for Senior Accountable Officials, “Open Government Directive–Federal Spending Transparency and Subaward and Compensation Data Reporting,” August 27, 2010.) FFATA, § 2—Full Disclosure of Entities Receiving Federal Funding, directed the Office of Management and Budget to “ensure the existence and operation of a single searchable website, accessible by the public at no cost to access, that includes for each Federal award—(A) the name of the entity receiving the award” and other specified information. (See Public Law 109-282, §2(b).) That website is USASpending.gov. On that website, a search by “recipient” does not have an option to search for “State of Texas.” Rather, the search options individually list the Texas Workforce Commission and other Texas state agencies as separate recipients. When TWC makes an interagency pass-through contract to another state agency, TWC has always treated that other state agency as first-tier subrecipient for FFATA reporting purposes. That decision was based on guidance and interpretation of information available when the FFATA subaward reporting requirements took effect in 2010. TWC has continued in that manner with no audit finding on that approach until now. If TWC adheres to the recommendation made by this finding, the public will no longer have access to the interagency contract amounts through USASpending.gov. The USASpending.gov data presented to the public will instead indicate that the subrecipients of another state agency received subawards directly from TWC, which is inaccurate, will make the USASpending.gov data of the other state agency incomplete, and will cause the USASpending.gov data to be inconsistent with both state agencies’ presentation of those subawards in their respective systems and financial statements. In effect, the USASpending.gov data will represent the subawards of the other state agency as TWC’s subrecipients, while TWC’s systems and financial statements will have no record of those subawards beyond FFATA reporting. Similarly, the other state agency’s systems and financial statements will reflect those subawards as its own, but with no related reflection of that relationship in USASpending.gov. If the public were to submit an open records request about the subawards, the State’s response would be delayed by one state agency collecting data from the other, and inconsistent with the public’s expectation as to which state agency issued and managed those subawards. Those effects seem inconsistent with FFATA’s openness and transparency goals.
2024-001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed-through the Texas Department of State Health Services FFAL #93.958 Mental Health Block Grant (Federal Award) (Contract numbers HHS000502700001, HHS001108400004, HHS001204800001, and H79SM085571-01) Health Community Collaboratives (State Award – No FFAL) Allowable Costs Cash Management Non-Material Noncompliance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Criteria: Section 2 CFR 200.414 establishes that recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). The recipient or subrecipient is authorized to determine the appropriate rate up to this limit. When applying the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either direct or indirect costs and may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de minimis rate does not require documentation to justify its use and may be used indefinitely. Once elected, the recipient or subrecipient must use the de minimis rate for all Federal awards until the recipient or subrecipient chooses to receive a negotiated rate. Per 2 CFR 200.1, modified total direct cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs. TxGMS follow this same guidance. Condition: The Center did not exclude charges for patient care when calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC). Cause: Due to the Center improperly calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC), an indirect rate other than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate elected by the Center and allowed under the Uniform Guidance and TxGMS was being charged to and reimbursed by the federal and state grants. Effect: Insufficient procedures and internal controls over cash management resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: Mental Health Block Grant – Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $5,139. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $39,283. Healthy Community Collaboratives - Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $26,426. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $88,200. Context/Sampling: Mental Health Block Grant – A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $843,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $5,850,000. Healthy Community Collaboratives - A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $949,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $2,750,000. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Center establish and adhere to policies and procedures, including internal controls, to ensure compliance with cash management requirements as established by 2 CFR 200.414 and 2 CFR 200.1 and TxGMS. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
2024-001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed-through the Texas Department of State Health Services FFAL #93.958 Mental Health Block Grant (Federal Award) (Contract numbers HHS000502700001, HHS001108400004, HHS001204800001, and H79SM085571-01) Health Community Collaboratives (State Award – No FFAL) Allowable Costs Cash Management Non-Material Noncompliance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Criteria: Section 2 CFR 200.414 establishes that recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). The recipient or subrecipient is authorized to determine the appropriate rate up to this limit. When applying the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either direct or indirect costs and may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de minimis rate does not require documentation to justify its use and may be used indefinitely. Once elected, the recipient or subrecipient must use the de minimis rate for all Federal awards until the recipient or subrecipient chooses to receive a negotiated rate. Per 2 CFR 200.1, modified total direct cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs. TxGMS follow this same guidance. Condition: The Center did not exclude charges for patient care when calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC). Cause: Due to the Center improperly calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC), an indirect rate other than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate elected by the Center and allowed under the Uniform Guidance and TxGMS was being charged to and reimbursed by the federal and state grants. Effect: Insufficient procedures and internal controls over cash management resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: Mental Health Block Grant – Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $5,139. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $39,283. Healthy Community Collaboratives - Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $26,426. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $88,200. Context/Sampling: Mental Health Block Grant – A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $843,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $5,850,000. Healthy Community Collaboratives - A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $949,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $2,750,000. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Center establish and adhere to policies and procedures, including internal controls, to ensure compliance with cash management requirements as established by 2 CFR 200.414 and 2 CFR 200.1 and TxGMS. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
2024-001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed-through the Texas Department of State Health Services FFAL #93.958 Mental Health Block Grant (Federal Award) (Contract numbers HHS000502700001, HHS001108400004, HHS001204800001, and H79SM085571-01) Health Community Collaboratives (State Award – No FFAL) Allowable Costs Cash Management Non-Material Noncompliance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Criteria: Section 2 CFR 200.414 establishes that recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). The recipient or subrecipient is authorized to determine the appropriate rate up to this limit. When applying the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either direct or indirect costs and may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de minimis rate does not require documentation to justify its use and may be used indefinitely. Once elected, the recipient or subrecipient must use the de minimis rate for all Federal awards until the recipient or subrecipient chooses to receive a negotiated rate. Per 2 CFR 200.1, modified total direct cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs. TxGMS follow this same guidance. Condition: The Center did not exclude charges for patient care when calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC). Cause: Due to the Center improperly calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC), an indirect rate other than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate elected by the Center and allowed under the Uniform Guidance and TxGMS was being charged to and reimbursed by the federal and state grants. Effect: Insufficient procedures and internal controls over cash management resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: Mental Health Block Grant – Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $5,139. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $39,283. Healthy Community Collaboratives - Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $26,426. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $88,200. Context/Sampling: Mental Health Block Grant – A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $843,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $5,850,000. Healthy Community Collaboratives - A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $949,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $2,750,000. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Center establish and adhere to policies and procedures, including internal controls, to ensure compliance with cash management requirements as established by 2 CFR 200.414 and 2 CFR 200.1 and TxGMS. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
2024-001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed-through the Texas Department of State Health Services FFAL #93.958 Mental Health Block Grant (Federal Award) (Contract numbers HHS000502700001, HHS001108400004, HHS001204800001, and H79SM085571-01) Health Community Collaboratives (State Award – No FFAL) Allowable Costs Cash Management Non-Material Noncompliance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Criteria: Section 2 CFR 200.414 establishes that recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). The recipient or subrecipient is authorized to determine the appropriate rate up to this limit. When applying the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either direct or indirect costs and may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de minimis rate does not require documentation to justify its use and may be used indefinitely. Once elected, the recipient or subrecipient must use the de minimis rate for all Federal awards until the recipient or subrecipient chooses to receive a negotiated rate. Per 2 CFR 200.1, modified total direct cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs. TxGMS follow this same guidance. Condition: The Center did not exclude charges for patient care when calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC). Cause: Due to the Center improperly calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC), an indirect rate other than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate elected by the Center and allowed under the Uniform Guidance and TxGMS was being charged to and reimbursed by the federal and state grants. Effect: Insufficient procedures and internal controls over cash management resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: Mental Health Block Grant – Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $5,139. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $39,283. Healthy Community Collaboratives - Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $26,426. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $88,200. Context/Sampling: Mental Health Block Grant – A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $843,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $5,850,000. Healthy Community Collaboratives - A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $949,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $2,750,000. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Center establish and adhere to policies and procedures, including internal controls, to ensure compliance with cash management requirements as established by 2 CFR 200.414 and 2 CFR 200.1 and TxGMS. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
2024-001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed-through the Texas Department of State Health Services FFAL #93.958 Mental Health Block Grant (Federal Award) (Contract numbers HHS000502700001, HHS001108400004, HHS001204800001, and H79SM085571-01) Health Community Collaboratives (State Award – No FFAL) Allowable Costs Cash Management Non-Material Noncompliance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Criteria: Section 2 CFR 200.414 establishes that recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). The recipient or subrecipient is authorized to determine the appropriate rate up to this limit. When applying the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either direct or indirect costs and may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de minimis rate does not require documentation to justify its use and may be used indefinitely. Once elected, the recipient or subrecipient must use the de minimis rate for all Federal awards until the recipient or subrecipient chooses to receive a negotiated rate. Per 2 CFR 200.1, modified total direct cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs. TxGMS follow this same guidance. Condition: The Center did not exclude charges for patient care when calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC). Cause: Due to the Center improperly calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC), an indirect rate other than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate elected by the Center and allowed under the Uniform Guidance and TxGMS was being charged to and reimbursed by the federal and state grants. Effect: Insufficient procedures and internal controls over cash management resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: Mental Health Block Grant – Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $5,139. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $39,283. Healthy Community Collaboratives - Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $26,426. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $88,200. Context/Sampling: Mental Health Block Grant – A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $843,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $5,850,000. Healthy Community Collaboratives - A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $949,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $2,750,000. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Center establish and adhere to policies and procedures, including internal controls, to ensure compliance with cash management requirements as established by 2 CFR 200.414 and 2 CFR 200.1 and TxGMS. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
2024-001 U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Passed-through the Texas Department of State Health Services FFAL #93.958 Mental Health Block Grant (Federal Award) (Contract numbers HHS000502700001, HHS001108400004, HHS001204800001, and H79SM085571-01) Health Community Collaboratives (State Award – No FFAL) Allowable Costs Cash Management Non-Material Noncompliance Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Criteria: Section 2 CFR 200.414 establishes that recipients and subrecipients that do not have a current Federal negotiated indirect cost rate (including provisional rate) may elect to charge a de minimis rate of up to 10 percent of modified total direct costs (MTDC). The recipient or subrecipient is authorized to determine the appropriate rate up to this limit. When applying the de minimis rate, costs must be consistently charged as either direct or indirect costs and may not be double charged or inconsistently charged as both. The de minimis rate does not require documentation to justify its use and may be used indefinitely. Once elected, the recipient or subrecipient must use the de minimis rate for all Federal awards until the recipient or subrecipient chooses to receive a negotiated rate. Per 2 CFR 200.1, modified total direct cost (MTDC) means all direct salaries and wages, applicable fringe benefits, materials and supplies, services, travel, and up to the first $50,000 of each subaward (regardless of the period of performance of the subawards under the award). MTDC excludes equipment, capital expenditures, charges for patient care, rental costs, tuition remission, scholarships and fellowships, participant support costs, and the portion of each subaward in excess of $50,000. Other items may only be excluded when necessary to avoid a serious inequity in the distribution of indirect costs and with the approval of the cognizant agency for indirect costs. TxGMS follow this same guidance. Condition: The Center did not exclude charges for patient care when calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC). Cause: Due to the Center improperly calculating modified total direct costs (MTDC), an indirect rate other than the 10% de minimis indirect cost rate elected by the Center and allowed under the Uniform Guidance and TxGMS was being charged to and reimbursed by the federal and state grants. Effect: Insufficient procedures and internal controls over cash management resulted in noncompliance. Questioned Costs: Mental Health Block Grant – Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $5,139. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $39,283. Healthy Community Collaboratives - Total known questioned costs due to error in calculating MTDC amounted to $26,426. Projected or likely questioned costs as a result of the error are approximately $88,200. Context/Sampling: Mental Health Block Grant – A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $843,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $5,850,000. Healthy Community Collaboratives - A nonstatistical sample of 3 out of 12 reimbursement requests for the fiscal year were selected for cash management testing. For the 3 reimbursements selected, we tested approximately $949,000 of reimbursements out of total reimbursements of approximately $2,750,000. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Center establish and adhere to policies and procedures, including internal controls, to ensure compliance with cash management requirements as established by 2 CFR 200.414 and 2 CFR 200.1 and TxGMS. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
FINDING 2024-001 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Program, School Summer Food Service Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 2023, FY 2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. . . .” 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the Child Nutrition Program and Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish internal controls enabled noncompliance to go undetected. The failure to comply with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $50,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. The School Corporation’s policy states that the small purchase threshold is between $10,000 and $150,000. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2023, two vendors, totaling $109,657 and $53,441, were selected for testing at the small purchase threshold. The School Corporation did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to fiscal year 2023. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. During the audit period, there were ten vendors identified which exceeded $25,000 in disbursements on an annual basis. Six vendors were selected for testing. In one instance, the School Corporation’s contract with the vendor did not include any suspension and debarment clause and the School Corporation did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was systemic issues throughout the audit period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish and implement control procedures to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. This should include documenting the procurement process taken by management for transactions with vendors exceeding the simplified acquisition and small purchase thresholds. When utilizing vendors providing specialized services, documentation should be prepared and maintained by management to support sole source procurement decisions when competitive is limited due to the nature of the service. We also recommend implement an annual control to review and document suspension and debarment checks for all vendors funded with Child Nutrition Cluster grant funds that meet the covered transaction threshold of $25,000. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-001 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Program, School Summer Food Service Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 2023, FY 2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. . . .” 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the Child Nutrition Program and Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish internal controls enabled noncompliance to go undetected. The failure to comply with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $50,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. The School Corporation’s policy states that the small purchase threshold is between $10,000 and $150,000. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2023, two vendors, totaling $109,657 and $53,441, were selected for testing at the small purchase threshold. The School Corporation did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to fiscal year 2023. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. During the audit period, there were ten vendors identified which exceeded $25,000 in disbursements on an annual basis. Six vendors were selected for testing. In one instance, the School Corporation’s contract with the vendor did not include any suspension and debarment clause and the School Corporation did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was systemic issues throughout the audit period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish and implement control procedures to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. This should include documenting the procurement process taken by management for transactions with vendors exceeding the simplified acquisition and small purchase thresholds. When utilizing vendors providing specialized services, documentation should be prepared and maintained by management to support sole source procurement decisions when competitive is limited due to the nature of the service. We also recommend implement an annual control to review and document suspension and debarment checks for all vendors funded with Child Nutrition Cluster grant funds that meet the covered transaction threshold of $25,000. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-001 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Program, School Summer Food Service Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 2023, FY 2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. . . .” 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the Child Nutrition Program and Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish internal controls enabled noncompliance to go undetected. The failure to comply with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $50,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. The School Corporation’s policy states that the small purchase threshold is between $10,000 and $150,000. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2023, two vendors, totaling $109,657 and $53,441, were selected for testing at the small purchase threshold. The School Corporation did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to fiscal year 2023. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. During the audit period, there were ten vendors identified which exceeded $25,000 in disbursements on an annual basis. Six vendors were selected for testing. In one instance, the School Corporation’s contract with the vendor did not include any suspension and debarment clause and the School Corporation did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was systemic issues throughout the audit period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish and implement control procedures to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. This should include documenting the procurement process taken by management for transactions with vendors exceeding the simplified acquisition and small purchase thresholds. When utilizing vendors providing specialized services, documentation should be prepared and maintained by management to support sole source procurement decisions when competitive is limited due to the nature of the service. We also recommend implement an annual control to review and document suspension and debarment checks for all vendors funded with Child Nutrition Cluster grant funds that meet the covered transaction threshold of $25,000. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-001 Information on the federal program: Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Program, School Summer Food Service Program Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 2023, FY 2024 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. . . .” 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases — (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . . “ 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the Child Nutrition Program and Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirements. Cause: The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish internal controls enabled noncompliance to go undetected. The failure to comply with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could have resulted in the loss of federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs: There were no questioned costs identified. Context: Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a non-Federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $50,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micropurchase threshold, but below the simplified acquisition threshold. The School Corporation’s policy states that the small purchase threshold is between $10,000 and $150,000. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. For fiscal year 2023, two vendors, totaling $109,657 and $53,441, were selected for testing at the small purchase threshold. The School Corporation did not obtain price or rate quotes nor was there documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was isolated to fiscal year 2023. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. “Covered transactions” include but are not limited to contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. During the audit period, there were ten vendors identified which exceeded $25,000 in disbursements on an annual basis. Six vendors were selected for testing. In one instance, the School Corporation’s contract with the vendor did not include any suspension and debarment clause and the School Corporation did not verify the vendor’s suspension and debarment status prior to payment. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was systemic issues throughout the audit period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish and implement control procedures to ensure compliance with the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. This should include documenting the procurement process taken by management for transactions with vendors exceeding the simplified acquisition and small purchase thresholds. When utilizing vendors providing specialized services, documentation should be prepared and maintained by management to support sole source procurement decisions when competitive is limited due to the nature of the service. We also recommend implement an annual control to review and document suspension and debarment checks for all vendors funded with Child Nutrition Cluster grant funds that meet the covered transaction threshold of $25,000. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.
Department of Housing and Urban Development Program Name: Continuum of Care Program Federal Assistance Listing Number: 14.267 Significant Deficiency, Nonmaterial Noncompliance – Period of Performance Finding 2024-002 Criteria: Period of performance is defined in 2 CFR 200.1 as “the time interval between the start and end date of a federal award, which may include one or more budget periods.” Condition: For one award, the 2023 grant award project was not closed timely in the general ledger system and the County erroneously recorded fiscal year 2024 grant costs of $1,059 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Additionally, for one award, the County recorded grant costs of $28,685 to the project, which was beyond the approved period of performance of the award. Effect: By not having the grant project codes properly closed at the end of the period of performance, the County could potentially request reimbursement for costs incurred and recorded beyond the grants approved period of performance from the Federal government. Questioned Costs: $29,744. Cause: The County did not have a formal policy to ensure grant project codes were properly closed and expenditures were not being recorded beyond the grant award’s stated period of performance. Recommendation: We recommend the County should implement a formal policy to ensure all grants are properly closed and no costs are incurred on grants after their period of performance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and is implementing procedures to correct this which is further discussed in the Corrective Action Plan. Corrective Action Plan: See Corrective Action Plan prepared by the County.