FINDING 2023-001 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Period of Performance, and Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): PO 20011717 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana State Department of Health Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Period of Performance, Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The County Department of Health, a department within the County, was awarded the Health Issues and Challenges grant through the Indiana State Department of Health financed through the American Rescue Plan Act for the purpose of funding programs that focus on the improvement of chronic disease, specifically, elevated blood lead level reduction. The Health Issues and Challenges grant is a reimbursable grant, whereby the County received reimbursement on a per-case basis at a stated rate for Case Management and Environmental Investigation activities performed. The County Department of Health received federal receipts related to the grant in the amount of $130,479 during 2023. As part of sound management of the federal award, the County Department of Health was responsible for implementing a system of internal controls that would ensure compliance with the applicable requirements. The County Department of Health did not properly design or implement such a system. Receipts of the program were adequately identified through the use of an account number within the County Health Fund (285) in the County's ledger (ledger) which was unique to the Health Issues and Challenges grant receipts. However, the ledger did not adequately identify the expenditures of the grant program within the County Health Fund. Through inquiry with the County Department of Health employees and review of unit-prepared support of grant expenditures, we determined expenditures were made with grant funds during the audit period; however, we were unable to distinguish between the expenditures of the Health Issues and Challenges grant and all other activities of the County Department of Health in the County Health fund. Due to the lack of separate identification of expenditures in the financial records, we were not able to establish a population from which to audit the Health Issues and Challenges grant for compliance with the following compliance requirements of the program: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Procurement and Suspension and Debarment As such, the full award amount of $130,479, as reported on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, was determined to be questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.300(b) states in part: "The non-Federal entity is responsible for complying with all requirements of the Federal award. . . ." 2 CFR 200.302 states in part: "(a) Each state must expend and account for the Federal award in accordance with state laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the state's own funds. In addition, the state's and the other non-Federal entity's financial management systems, including records documenting compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award, must be sufficient to permit the preparation of reports required by general and program-specific terms and conditions; and the tracing of funds to a level of expenditures adequate to establish that such funds have been used according to the Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. . . . (b) The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following . . . (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, Federal award identification number and year, name of the Federal agency, and name of the pass-through entity, if any. (2) Accurate, current, and complete disclosure of the financial results of each Federal award or program in accordance with the reporting requirements set forth in §§ 200.328 and 200.329. . . . (3) Records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federallyfunded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. (4) Effective control over, and accountability for, all funds, property, and other assets. . . ." Cause The County Department of Health was unable to differentiate expenditures made from federal and non-federal funds within its ledger for the Heath Issues and Challenges grant. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, a population of expenditures associated with the Health Issues and Challenges grant could not be determined. As such, the County Department of Health cannot ensure nor can we determine that expenditures of the grant were not unallowable, within the proper period, and adhered to established practices and policies. Questioned Costs We identified $130,479 in known questioned costs as noted in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the County Department of Health establish a system of internal controls to ensure that grant award funds are adequately accounted for and tracked in such a manner as to determine the activity, receipts, and disbursements associated with the grant. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Finding 2023-004, Eligibility (Assistance Listing 93.567 and 93.576) Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.300 requires that the Federal Organization or pass-through entity must manage and administer the Federal award in a manner so as to ensure that Federal programs are implemented in full accordance with the U.S. Constitution, applicable Federal statutes and regulations. Condition and Context: The Organization’s maintains files for the documentation of program eligibility however those documents do not include evidence of review or approval by the Organization’s staff. In addition, 37 out of 60 samples didn’t include the signature of the interpreter which also served as case manager. There was no indication of who was handling the case unless the enrollment form was signed by the interpreter. Cause: Internal controls over the documentation of program eligibility were not operating effectively or designed properly. Effect: The review and approval performed on program eligibility was not documented. Identification as a repeat finding: No. Questioned costs: None. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization institute a policy that provides for the documentation of the review of eligibility documents.
Finding 2023-01 – No Written Policies or Procedures, or Standards of Conduct Relative to Federal Awards Criteria – Written policies, procedures, or standards of conduct relative to federal awards are required by 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200: Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, Subparts D and E (Sections 2 CFR 200.300 and 200.400, respectively.) Condition – Sanitation District No. 1 does not have formalized written policies, procedures, or standards of conduct relative to federal awards. Effect – Effective and consistent internal control over compliance relative to federal awards cannot be maintained and monitored without written policies, procedures or standards of conduct. Recommendation – Sanitation District No. 1 should prepare written policies, procedures, or standards of conduct that document internal controls necessary to ensure compliance over the expenditure of federal awards. Management’s Response – Management will prepare written policies to ensure internal control over compliance is documented.
2023 – 002 INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER DISBURSEMENTS Significant Deficiency U.S. DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION Federal Assistance No. 84.425U COVID-19: ARP - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Passthrough Agency: New Mexico Public Education Department Award Period: July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: During the testing there was an invoice in the amount of $299,271 that was paid of twice during June 2023. The expenditure was submitted for reimbursement from federal funds. The District was notified by the vendor of the double payment while asking to use it as credit against a separate invoice. Criteria: PART 200—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS § 200.303 Internal controls. The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. (e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non- Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also § 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Cause: The facilities department submitted the invoice to the finance department for payment at the beginning of June and towards the end of June. The accounts payable clerk bypassed the system error that the invoice number had been entered previously. Questioned costs: $299,271 was the amount of the duplicate payment. The expenditure from the duplicate payment was not reported in the schedule of expenditures in federal awards and was reported as a receivable from the vendor in the financial statements for Fund 24330. Effect or potential effect: Expenditures could be overstated, as well as revenues, if invoices are paid more than once and then also reimbursed. As a result, a receivable and unearned income must be recognized. Recommendation: Training should be given to accounts payable staff regarding the importance system warnings and the need to monitor invoices form the vendors. A tracking system should be implemented for tracking major projects to ensure than invoices are not reported more than once. Invoices should be stamped received upon receipt, marked when applied to a major project, and marked recorded once entered into the accounting system. Management’s response: Executive Director of Finance: Management agrees with this finding. The school district converted to a new financial ERP system as of July 1, 2023. The new ERP system flags any duplicate invoice numbers that maybe entered. The Accounts Payable (A/P) staff will verify if payment has already been made. On occasion, payment requests do not have an invoice number. To prevent duplicate payments, the Accounts Payable staff require original invoices and uses a system generated invoice number, or a will use a manual entry numbering convention to prevent duplicate invoice numbers. The invoice data is entered by an Accounts Payable specialist and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Manager. On occasion, A/P must request corrected invoices from vendors who try and reuse invoice numbers. The A/P Manager reviews invoice numbers during the check run for accuracy. Purchasing and A/P will also periodically review the vendor database for duplicate vendors. For construction projects that list a pay application number instead of an invoice number, A/P will implement a consistent invoice numbering convention to avoid duplicate payments. The A/P specialists will also review the PO payment history prior to processing. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Accounts Payable Manager Corrective action(s) timeline: December 1, 2023
2023 – 002 INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER DISBURSEMENTS Significant Deficiency U.S. DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION Federal Assistance No. 84.425U COVID-19: ARP - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Passthrough Agency: New Mexico Public Education Department Award Period: July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: During the testing there was an invoice in the amount of $299,271 that was paid of twice during June 2023. The expenditure was submitted for reimbursement from federal funds. The District was notified by the vendor of the double payment while asking to use it as credit against a separate invoice. Criteria: PART 200—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS § 200.303 Internal controls. The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. (e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non- Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also § 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Cause: The facilities department submitted the invoice to the finance department for payment at the beginning of June and towards the end of June. The accounts payable clerk bypassed the system error that the invoice number had been entered previously. Questioned costs: $299,271 was the amount of the duplicate payment. The expenditure from the duplicate payment was not reported in the schedule of expenditures in federal awards and was reported as a receivable from the vendor in the financial statements for Fund 24330. Effect or potential effect: Expenditures could be overstated, as well as revenues, if invoices are paid more than once and then also reimbursed. As a result, a receivable and unearned income must be recognized. Recommendation: Training should be given to accounts payable staff regarding the importance system warnings and the need to monitor invoices form the vendors. A tracking system should be implemented for tracking major projects to ensure than invoices are not reported more than once. Invoices should be stamped received upon receipt, marked when applied to a major project, and marked recorded once entered into the accounting system. Management’s response: Executive Director of Finance: Management agrees with this finding. The school district converted to a new financial ERP system as of July 1, 2023. The new ERP system flags any duplicate invoice numbers that maybe entered. The Accounts Payable (A/P) staff will verify if payment has already been made. On occasion, payment requests do not have an invoice number. To prevent duplicate payments, the Accounts Payable staff require original invoices and uses a system generated invoice number, or a will use a manual entry numbering convention to prevent duplicate invoice numbers. The invoice data is entered by an Accounts Payable specialist and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Manager. On occasion, A/P must request corrected invoices from vendors who try and reuse invoice numbers. The A/P Manager reviews invoice numbers during the check run for accuracy. Purchasing and A/P will also periodically review the vendor database for duplicate vendors. For construction projects that list a pay application number instead of an invoice number, A/P will implement a consistent invoice numbering convention to avoid duplicate payments. The A/P specialists will also review the PO payment history prior to processing. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Accounts Payable Manager Corrective action(s) timeline: December 1, 2023
2023 – 002 INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER DISBURSEMENTS Significant Deficiency U.S. DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION Federal Assistance No. 84.425U COVID-19: ARP - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Passthrough Agency: New Mexico Public Education Department Award Period: July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: During the testing there was an invoice in the amount of $299,271 that was paid of twice during June 2023. The expenditure was submitted for reimbursement from federal funds. The District was notified by the vendor of the double payment while asking to use it as credit against a separate invoice. Criteria: PART 200—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS § 200.303 Internal controls. The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. (e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non- Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also § 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Cause: The facilities department submitted the invoice to the finance department for payment at the beginning of June and towards the end of June. The accounts payable clerk bypassed the system error that the invoice number had been entered previously. Questioned costs: $299,271 was the amount of the duplicate payment. The expenditure from the duplicate payment was not reported in the schedule of expenditures in federal awards and was reported as a receivable from the vendor in the financial statements for Fund 24330. Effect or potential effect: Expenditures could be overstated, as well as revenues, if invoices are paid more than once and then also reimbursed. As a result, a receivable and unearned income must be recognized. Recommendation: Training should be given to accounts payable staff regarding the importance system warnings and the need to monitor invoices form the vendors. A tracking system should be implemented for tracking major projects to ensure than invoices are not reported more than once. Invoices should be stamped received upon receipt, marked when applied to a major project, and marked recorded once entered into the accounting system. Management’s response: Executive Director of Finance: Management agrees with this finding. The school district converted to a new financial ERP system as of July 1, 2023. The new ERP system flags any duplicate invoice numbers that maybe entered. The Accounts Payable (A/P) staff will verify if payment has already been made. On occasion, payment requests do not have an invoice number. To prevent duplicate payments, the Accounts Payable staff require original invoices and uses a system generated invoice number, or a will use a manual entry numbering convention to prevent duplicate invoice numbers. The invoice data is entered by an Accounts Payable specialist and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Manager. On occasion, A/P must request corrected invoices from vendors who try and reuse invoice numbers. The A/P Manager reviews invoice numbers during the check run for accuracy. Purchasing and A/P will also periodically review the vendor database for duplicate vendors. For construction projects that list a pay application number instead of an invoice number, A/P will implement a consistent invoice numbering convention to avoid duplicate payments. The A/P specialists will also review the PO payment history prior to processing. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Accounts Payable Manager Corrective action(s) timeline: December 1, 2023
2023 – 002 INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER DISBURSEMENTS Significant Deficiency U.S. DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION Federal Assistance No. 84.425U COVID-19: ARP - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Passthrough Agency: New Mexico Public Education Department Award Period: July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: During the testing there was an invoice in the amount of $299,271 that was paid of twice during June 2023. The expenditure was submitted for reimbursement from federal funds. The District was notified by the vendor of the double payment while asking to use it as credit against a separate invoice. Criteria: PART 200—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS § 200.303 Internal controls. The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. (e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non- Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also § 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Cause: The facilities department submitted the invoice to the finance department for payment at the beginning of June and towards the end of June. The accounts payable clerk bypassed the system error that the invoice number had been entered previously. Questioned costs: $299,271 was the amount of the duplicate payment. The expenditure from the duplicate payment was not reported in the schedule of expenditures in federal awards and was reported as a receivable from the vendor in the financial statements for Fund 24330. Effect or potential effect: Expenditures could be overstated, as well as revenues, if invoices are paid more than once and then also reimbursed. As a result, a receivable and unearned income must be recognized. Recommendation: Training should be given to accounts payable staff regarding the importance system warnings and the need to monitor invoices form the vendors. A tracking system should be implemented for tracking major projects to ensure than invoices are not reported more than once. Invoices should be stamped received upon receipt, marked when applied to a major project, and marked recorded once entered into the accounting system. Management’s response: Executive Director of Finance: Management agrees with this finding. The school district converted to a new financial ERP system as of July 1, 2023. The new ERP system flags any duplicate invoice numbers that maybe entered. The Accounts Payable (A/P) staff will verify if payment has already been made. On occasion, payment requests do not have an invoice number. To prevent duplicate payments, the Accounts Payable staff require original invoices and uses a system generated invoice number, or a will use a manual entry numbering convention to prevent duplicate invoice numbers. The invoice data is entered by an Accounts Payable specialist and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Manager. On occasion, A/P must request corrected invoices from vendors who try and reuse invoice numbers. The A/P Manager reviews invoice numbers during the check run for accuracy. Purchasing and A/P will also periodically review the vendor database for duplicate vendors. For construction projects that list a pay application number instead of an invoice number, A/P will implement a consistent invoice numbering convention to avoid duplicate payments. The A/P specialists will also review the PO payment history prior to processing. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Accounts Payable Manager Corrective action(s) timeline: December 1, 2023
2023 – 002 INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER DISBURSEMENTS Significant Deficiency U.S. DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION Federal Assistance No. 84.425U COVID-19: ARP - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Passthrough Agency: New Mexico Public Education Department Award Period: July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: During the testing there was an invoice in the amount of $299,271 that was paid of twice during June 2023. The expenditure was submitted for reimbursement from federal funds. The District was notified by the vendor of the double payment while asking to use it as credit against a separate invoice. Criteria: PART 200—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS § 200.303 Internal controls. The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. (e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non- Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also § 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Cause: The facilities department submitted the invoice to the finance department for payment at the beginning of June and towards the end of June. The accounts payable clerk bypassed the system error that the invoice number had been entered previously. Questioned costs: $299,271 was the amount of the duplicate payment. The expenditure from the duplicate payment was not reported in the schedule of expenditures in federal awards and was reported as a receivable from the vendor in the financial statements for Fund 24330. Effect or potential effect: Expenditures could be overstated, as well as revenues, if invoices are paid more than once and then also reimbursed. As a result, a receivable and unearned income must be recognized. Recommendation: Training should be given to accounts payable staff regarding the importance system warnings and the need to monitor invoices form the vendors. A tracking system should be implemented for tracking major projects to ensure than invoices are not reported more than once. Invoices should be stamped received upon receipt, marked when applied to a major project, and marked recorded once entered into the accounting system. Management’s response: Executive Director of Finance: Management agrees with this finding. The school district converted to a new financial ERP system as of July 1, 2023. The new ERP system flags any duplicate invoice numbers that maybe entered. The Accounts Payable (A/P) staff will verify if payment has already been made. On occasion, payment requests do not have an invoice number. To prevent duplicate payments, the Accounts Payable staff require original invoices and uses a system generated invoice number, or a will use a manual entry numbering convention to prevent duplicate invoice numbers. The invoice data is entered by an Accounts Payable specialist and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Manager. On occasion, A/P must request corrected invoices from vendors who try and reuse invoice numbers. The A/P Manager reviews invoice numbers during the check run for accuracy. Purchasing and A/P will also periodically review the vendor database for duplicate vendors. For construction projects that list a pay application number instead of an invoice number, A/P will implement a consistent invoice numbering convention to avoid duplicate payments. The A/P specialists will also review the PO payment history prior to processing. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Accounts Payable Manager Corrective action(s) timeline: December 1, 2023
2023 – 002 INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER DISBURSEMENTS Significant Deficiency U.S. DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION Federal Assistance No. 84.425U COVID-19: ARP - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Passthrough Agency: New Mexico Public Education Department Award Period: July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: During the testing there was an invoice in the amount of $299,271 that was paid of twice during June 2023. The expenditure was submitted for reimbursement from federal funds. The District was notified by the vendor of the double payment while asking to use it as credit against a separate invoice. Criteria: PART 200—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS § 200.303 Internal controls. The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. (e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non- Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also § 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Cause: The facilities department submitted the invoice to the finance department for payment at the beginning of June and towards the end of June. The accounts payable clerk bypassed the system error that the invoice number had been entered previously. Questioned costs: $299,271 was the amount of the duplicate payment. The expenditure from the duplicate payment was not reported in the schedule of expenditures in federal awards and was reported as a receivable from the vendor in the financial statements for Fund 24330. Effect or potential effect: Expenditures could be overstated, as well as revenues, if invoices are paid more than once and then also reimbursed. As a result, a receivable and unearned income must be recognized. Recommendation: Training should be given to accounts payable staff regarding the importance system warnings and the need to monitor invoices form the vendors. A tracking system should be implemented for tracking major projects to ensure than invoices are not reported more than once. Invoices should be stamped received upon receipt, marked when applied to a major project, and marked recorded once entered into the accounting system. Management’s response: Executive Director of Finance: Management agrees with this finding. The school district converted to a new financial ERP system as of July 1, 2023. The new ERP system flags any duplicate invoice numbers that maybe entered. The Accounts Payable (A/P) staff will verify if payment has already been made. On occasion, payment requests do not have an invoice number. To prevent duplicate payments, the Accounts Payable staff require original invoices and uses a system generated invoice number, or a will use a manual entry numbering convention to prevent duplicate invoice numbers. The invoice data is entered by an Accounts Payable specialist and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Manager. On occasion, A/P must request corrected invoices from vendors who try and reuse invoice numbers. The A/P Manager reviews invoice numbers during the check run for accuracy. Purchasing and A/P will also periodically review the vendor database for duplicate vendors. For construction projects that list a pay application number instead of an invoice number, A/P will implement a consistent invoice numbering convention to avoid duplicate payments. The A/P specialists will also review the PO payment history prior to processing. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Accounts Payable Manager Corrective action(s) timeline: December 1, 2023
2023 – 002 INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER DISBURSEMENTS Significant Deficiency U.S. DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION Federal Assistance No. 84.425U COVID-19: ARP - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Passthrough Agency: New Mexico Public Education Department Award Period: July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: During the testing there was an invoice in the amount of $299,271 that was paid of twice during June 2023. The expenditure was submitted for reimbursement from federal funds. The District was notified by the vendor of the double payment while asking to use it as credit against a separate invoice. Criteria: PART 200—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS § 200.303 Internal controls. The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. (e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non- Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also § 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Cause: The facilities department submitted the invoice to the finance department for payment at the beginning of June and towards the end of June. The accounts payable clerk bypassed the system error that the invoice number had been entered previously. Questioned costs: $299,271 was the amount of the duplicate payment. The expenditure from the duplicate payment was not reported in the schedule of expenditures in federal awards and was reported as a receivable from the vendor in the financial statements for Fund 24330. Effect or potential effect: Expenditures could be overstated, as well as revenues, if invoices are paid more than once and then also reimbursed. As a result, a receivable and unearned income must be recognized. Recommendation: Training should be given to accounts payable staff regarding the importance system warnings and the need to monitor invoices form the vendors. A tracking system should be implemented for tracking major projects to ensure than invoices are not reported more than once. Invoices should be stamped received upon receipt, marked when applied to a major project, and marked recorded once entered into the accounting system. Management’s response: Executive Director of Finance: Management agrees with this finding. The school district converted to a new financial ERP system as of July 1, 2023. The new ERP system flags any duplicate invoice numbers that maybe entered. The Accounts Payable (A/P) staff will verify if payment has already been made. On occasion, payment requests do not have an invoice number. To prevent duplicate payments, the Accounts Payable staff require original invoices and uses a system generated invoice number, or a will use a manual entry numbering convention to prevent duplicate invoice numbers. The invoice data is entered by an Accounts Payable specialist and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Manager. On occasion, A/P must request corrected invoices from vendors who try and reuse invoice numbers. The A/P Manager reviews invoice numbers during the check run for accuracy. Purchasing and A/P will also periodically review the vendor database for duplicate vendors. For construction projects that list a pay application number instead of an invoice number, A/P will implement a consistent invoice numbering convention to avoid duplicate payments. The A/P specialists will also review the PO payment history prior to processing. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Accounts Payable Manager Corrective action(s) timeline: December 1, 2023
2023 – 002 INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER DISBURSEMENTS Significant Deficiency U.S. DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION Federal Assistance No. 84.425U COVID-19: ARP - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Passthrough Agency: New Mexico Public Education Department Award Period: July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: During the testing there was an invoice in the amount of $299,271 that was paid of twice during June 2023. The expenditure was submitted for reimbursement from federal funds. The District was notified by the vendor of the double payment while asking to use it as credit against a separate invoice. Criteria: PART 200—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS § 200.303 Internal controls. The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. (e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non- Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also § 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Cause: The facilities department submitted the invoice to the finance department for payment at the beginning of June and towards the end of June. The accounts payable clerk bypassed the system error that the invoice number had been entered previously. Questioned costs: $299,271 was the amount of the duplicate payment. The expenditure from the duplicate payment was not reported in the schedule of expenditures in federal awards and was reported as a receivable from the vendor in the financial statements for Fund 24330. Effect or potential effect: Expenditures could be overstated, as well as revenues, if invoices are paid more than once and then also reimbursed. As a result, a receivable and unearned income must be recognized. Recommendation: Training should be given to accounts payable staff regarding the importance system warnings and the need to monitor invoices form the vendors. A tracking system should be implemented for tracking major projects to ensure than invoices are not reported more than once. Invoices should be stamped received upon receipt, marked when applied to a major project, and marked recorded once entered into the accounting system. Management’s response: Executive Director of Finance: Management agrees with this finding. The school district converted to a new financial ERP system as of July 1, 2023. The new ERP system flags any duplicate invoice numbers that maybe entered. The Accounts Payable (A/P) staff will verify if payment has already been made. On occasion, payment requests do not have an invoice number. To prevent duplicate payments, the Accounts Payable staff require original invoices and uses a system generated invoice number, or a will use a manual entry numbering convention to prevent duplicate invoice numbers. The invoice data is entered by an Accounts Payable specialist and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Manager. On occasion, A/P must request corrected invoices from vendors who try and reuse invoice numbers. The A/P Manager reviews invoice numbers during the check run for accuracy. Purchasing and A/P will also periodically review the vendor database for duplicate vendors. For construction projects that list a pay application number instead of an invoice number, A/P will implement a consistent invoice numbering convention to avoid duplicate payments. The A/P specialists will also review the PO payment history prior to processing. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Accounts Payable Manager Corrective action(s) timeline: December 1, 2023
Finding 2023-01 – No Written Policies or Procedures, or Standards of Conduct Relative to Federal Awards Criteria – Written policies, procedures, or standards of conduct relative to federal awards are required by 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200: Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, Subparts D and E (Sections 2 CFR 200.300 and 200.400, respectively.) Condition – Sanitation District No. 1 does not have formalized written policies, procedures, or standards of conduct relative to federal awards. Effect – Effective and consistent internal control over compliance relative to federal awards cannot be maintained and monitored without written policies, procedures or standards of conduct. Recommendation – Sanitation District No. 1 should prepare written policies, procedures, or standards of conduct that document internal controls necessary to ensure compliance over the expenditure of federal awards. Management’s Response – Management will prepare written policies to ensure internal control over compliance is documented.
Assistance Listing Number(s): 10.553 and 10.555 Name of Federal Program or Cluster: Child Nutrition Cluster Name of Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Name of Pass-through Entity: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Pass-through Entity Identifying Number(s): 2023-138142-DPI-SB-546, 2023-138005-DPI-SB-546, 2023-138005-DPI-NSL-547, and 2023-138005-DPI-SK_NSLAE-566 Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Criteria: According to 2 CFR, Part 200.300 of the Uniform Guidance, a non-federal entity must have the following policies over compliance: cash management (section 200.302(b)(6)), allowability of costs (section 200.302(b)(7)), procurement (section 200.318-.326, reporting (section 200.303), special tests (section 200.303), travel (section 200.475(b)), compensation (section 200.430(a)(1)), and fringe benefits (section 200.431). Condition: Written policies and procedures are not in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Cause: Sufficient training has not been provided to individuals responsible for the development of written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Effect or Potential Effect: Lack of policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance could result in noncompliance, disallowed costs, or discontinuance of federal funding. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Additional training should be provided to individuals responsible for the development of written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials: One City Schools, Inc. agrees with the finding and are working on creating written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance.
Assistance Listing Number(s): 10.553 and 10.555 Name of Federal Program or Cluster: Child Nutrition Cluster Name of Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Name of Pass-through Entity: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Pass-through Entity Identifying Number(s): 2023-138142-DPI-SB-546, 2023-138005-DPI-SB-546, 2023-138005-DPI-NSL-547, and 2023-138005-DPI-SK_NSLAE-566 Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Criteria: According to 2 CFR, Part 200.300 of the Uniform Guidance, a non-federal entity must have the following policies over compliance: cash management (section 200.302(b)(6)), allowability of costs (section 200.302(b)(7)), procurement (section 200.318-.326, reporting (section 200.303), special tests (section 200.303), travel (section 200.475(b)), compensation (section 200.430(a)(1)), and fringe benefits (section 200.431). Condition: Written policies and procedures are not in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Cause: Sufficient training has not been provided to individuals responsible for the development of written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Effect or Potential Effect: Lack of policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance could result in noncompliance, disallowed costs, or discontinuance of federal funding. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Additional training should be provided to individuals responsible for the development of written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials: One City Schools, Inc. agrees with the finding and are working on creating written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance.
Assistance Listing Number(s): 10.553 and 10.555 Name of Federal Program or Cluster: Child Nutrition Cluster Name of Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Name of Pass-through Entity: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Pass-through Entity Identifying Number(s): 2023-138142-DPI-SB-546, 2023-138005-DPI-SB-546, 2023-138005-DPI-NSL-547, and 2023-138005-DPI-SK_NSLAE-566 Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Criteria: According to 2 CFR, Part 200.300 of the Uniform Guidance, a non-federal entity must have the following policies over compliance: cash management (section 200.302(b)(6)), allowability of costs (section 200.302(b)(7)), procurement (section 200.318-.326, reporting (section 200.303), special tests (section 200.303), travel (section 200.475(b)), compensation (section 200.430(a)(1)), and fringe benefits (section 200.431). Condition: Written policies and procedures are not in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Cause: Sufficient training has not been provided to individuals responsible for the development of written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Effect or Potential Effect: Lack of policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance could result in noncompliance, disallowed costs, or discontinuance of federal funding. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Additional training should be provided to individuals responsible for the development of written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials: One City Schools, Inc. agrees with the finding and are working on creating written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance.
Assistance Listing Number(s): 10.553 and 10.555 Name of Federal Program or Cluster: Child Nutrition Cluster Name of Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Name of Pass-through Entity: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Pass-through Entity Identifying Number(s): 2023-138142-DPI-SB-546, 2023-138005-DPI-SB-546, 2023-138005-DPI-NSL-547, and 2023-138005-DPI-SK_NSLAE-566 Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Criteria: According to 2 CFR, Part 200.300 of the Uniform Guidance, a non-federal entity must have the following policies over compliance: cash management (section 200.302(b)(6)), allowability of costs (section 200.302(b)(7)), procurement (section 200.318-.326, reporting (section 200.303), special tests (section 200.303), travel (section 200.475(b)), compensation (section 200.430(a)(1)), and fringe benefits (section 200.431). Condition: Written policies and procedures are not in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Cause: Sufficient training has not been provided to individuals responsible for the development of written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Effect or Potential Effect: Lack of policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance could result in noncompliance, disallowed costs, or discontinuance of federal funding. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Additional training should be provided to individuals responsible for the development of written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials: One City Schools, Inc. agrees with the finding and are working on creating written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance.
Finding 2023-01 – No Written Policies or Procedures, or Standards of Conduct Relative to Federal Awards. Criteria – Written policies, procedures, or standards of conduct relative to federal awards are required by 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200: Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, Subparts D and E (Sections 2 CFR 200.300 and 200.400, respectively.) Condition – Mental Health America of Northern Kentucky and Southwest Ohio does not have formalized written policies, procedures, or standards of conduct relative to federal awards. Potential Effect – Effective and consistent internal control over compliance relative to federal awards cannot be maintained and monitored without written policies, procedures or standards of conduct. Recommendation – Mental Health America of Northern Kentucky and Southwest Ohio should prepare written policies, procedures, or standards of conduct that document internal controls necessary to ensure compliance over the expenditure of federal awards. Management’s Response – Mental Health America of Northern Kentucky and Southwest Ohio has modified existing written policies and procedures to ensure effective and consistent internal control over documentation compliance relative to the expenditure of federal awards.
2023-005: Indirect Costs Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program Title: Value-Based Medical Student Education Training Program Assistance Listing Number: 93.680 Award Number and Year: T99HP39200 (July 1, 2020 – June 30, 2024) Award Period: July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance, Other Matters Applicable Institution: University of Mississippi Medical Center (UMMC) Criteria or Specific Requirement: Internal Control – Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Compliance – Per 2 CFR § 200.403, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award to be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award regarding types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also §200.306 Cost sharing or matching paragraph (b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§200.300 Statutory and national policy requirements through 200.309 Period of performance of this part. Condition: Indirect cost expense was improperly calculated. Questioned Costs: None Context: This condition occurred for the one award in our population. Cause: A transition to a new ERP system resulted in issues with calculating F&A according to our negotiated rate agreement. As a result, we recalculate F&A on each project when invoicing or reporting. This F&A entry was identified; however, it was not made timely. Effect: Indirect costs may be incorrectly charged to the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the institution strengthen its internal controls to ensure that calculations are reviewed and adjusted for, if necessary, in a timely manner. Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Finding 2023-002-Subrecipient Monitoring Federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Pass-through entity: The University of Texas of Austin Program: Birth Defects and Development Disabilities – Prevention and Surveillance Assistance listing number: 93.073 Federal award identification number and year: NU84DD000009 2021 Criteria: 2 CFR 330, .331, and .501(h) states non-federal entities must have a policy in place to monitor subrecipient and contractor determinations. Condition and Context: The Foundation did not have a subrecipient monitoring policy under 2 CFR 300, .331 and 501(h), however it was noted that monitoring is occurring. Cause: The Foundation did not have a formal subrecipient monitoring policy. Effect: The Foundation subrecipient monitoring policy did not conform to 2 CFR 300, .331 and 501(h). Questioned costs: None Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend management develop a formal subrecipient monitoring policy under 2 CFR 200.300, .331 and 501(h). Views of responsible individuals: Management agrees with the finding and recommendation. See corrective action plan for further information.
CONDITION: During my review of the District's compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, were obtained for the following vendors: IXL Learning $15,300 Allegheny Intermediate Unit $36,000, AIM Institute $18,750, J. Martin & Associates $137,961, Communities in Schools $26,000,The Commission, LLC $246,281 CRITERIA: In accordance with 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, the District must obtain/document at least three (3) written or well documented price or rate quotations from a reasonable number of qualified sources for purchases of goods between $10,000 and $$22,500 (threshold established annually). In addition, Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance requires price or rate quotations to be received from an adequate number of qualified sources for purchases above the micro purchase threshold of $10,000 and the simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs (#626.5), 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, and 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000 using federal funding. QUESTIONED COST: $480,292 CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs (#626.5), 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, and 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: The School District concurs with the above noted finding and addresses this issue in the ‘Corrective Action Plan’ included within this report.
CONDITION: During my review of the District's compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, were obtained for the following vendors: IXL Learning $15,300 Allegheny Intermediate Unit $36,000, AIM Institute $18,750, J. Martin & Associates $137,961, Communities in Schools $26,000,The Commission, LLC $246,281 CRITERIA: In accordance with 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, the District must obtain/document at least three (3) written or well documented price or rate quotations from a reasonable number of qualified sources for purchases of goods between $10,000 and $$22,500 (threshold established annually). In addition, Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance requires price or rate quotations to be received from an adequate number of qualified sources for purchases above the micro purchase threshold of $10,000 and the simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs (#626.5), 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, and 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000 using federal funding. QUESTIONED COST: $480,292 CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs (#626.5), 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, and 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: The School District concurs with the above noted finding and addresses this issue in the ‘Corrective Action Plan’ included within this report.
CONDITION: During my review of the District's compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, were obtained for the following vendors: IXL Learning $15,300 Allegheny Intermediate Unit $36,000, AIM Institute $18,750, J. Martin & Associates $137,961, Communities in Schools $26,000,The Commission, LLC $246,281 CRITERIA: In accordance with 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, the District must obtain/document at least three (3) written or well documented price or rate quotations from a reasonable number of qualified sources for purchases of goods between $10,000 and $$22,500 (threshold established annually). In addition, Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance requires price or rate quotations to be received from an adequate number of qualified sources for purchases above the micro purchase threshold of $10,000 and the simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs (#626.5), 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, and 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000 using federal funding. QUESTIONED COST: $480,292 CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs (#626.5), 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, and 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: The School District concurs with the above noted finding and addresses this issue in the ‘Corrective Action Plan’ included within this report.
CONDITION: During my review of the District's compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, were obtained for the following vendors: IXL Learning $15,300 Allegheny Intermediate Unit $36,000, AIM Institute $18,750, J. Martin & Associates $137,961, Communities in Schools $26,000,The Commission, LLC $246,281 CRITERIA: In accordance with 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, the District must obtain/document at least three (3) written or well documented price or rate quotations from a reasonable number of qualified sources for purchases of goods between $10,000 and $$22,500 (threshold established annually). In addition, Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance requires price or rate quotations to be received from an adequate number of qualified sources for purchases above the micro purchase threshold of $10,000 and the simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs (#626.5), 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, and 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000 using federal funding. QUESTIONED COST: $480,292 CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs (#626.5), 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, and 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: The School District concurs with the above noted finding and addresses this issue in the ‘Corrective Action Plan’ included within this report.
CONDITION: During my review of the District's compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, were obtained for the following vendors: IXL Learning $15,300 Allegheny Intermediate Unit $36,000, AIM Institute $18,750, J. Martin & Associates $137,961, Communities in Schools $26,000,The Commission, LLC $246,281 CRITERIA: In accordance with 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, the District must obtain/document at least three (3) written or well documented price or rate quotations from a reasonable number of qualified sources for purchases of goods between $10,000 and $$22,500 (threshold established annually). In addition, Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance requires price or rate quotations to be received from an adequate number of qualified sources for purchases above the micro purchase threshold of $10,000 and the simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs (#626.5), 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, and 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000 using federal funding. QUESTIONED COST: $480,292 CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs (#626.5), 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, and 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: The School District concurs with the above noted finding and addresses this issue in the ‘Corrective Action Plan’ included within this report.
CONDITION: During my review of The School District of the City of Jeannette’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that either 1) three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000 were obtained, or 2) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors – Grade Point Resources ($74,503.17) and VLN Partners, LLP ($52,750.00). CRITERIA: In accordance with 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, the District must obtain/document at least three (3) written or well documented price or rate quotations from a reasonable number of qualified sources for purchases of goods between $10,000 and $$22,500 (threshold established annually). In addition, Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance requires price or rate quotations to be received from an adequate number of qualified sources for purchases above the micro purchase threshold of $10,000 and the simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs (#626), 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, or 4) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. QUESTIONED COST: $127,253 CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs (#626.5), 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: The School District concurs with the above noted finding and addresses this issue in the ‘Corrective Action Plan’ included within this report.
2023-003 – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Internal Control and Compliance over Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (Significant Deficiency) Identification of the Federal Program: Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Assistance Listing Title: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Agency: Department of Treasury Pass-Through Entity: N/A Federal Award Number and Award Year: N/A Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): Pursuant to Code of Federal Regulation §200.403 Requirements for pass-through entities. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Condition: During our audit, we noted that three (3) out of forty (40) samples summed up to $39,055.50 had no proper source documents to support the transactions charged to the grant brought by lost official receipts, hence, identified as not adequately documented. Alternatively, the City created a memo to document the loss of receipts signed by the department head. Cause: The City was not able to safeguard the documents substantiating the transactions being charged to the grant. Effect or Potential Effect: The City did not comply with the CFR’s requirements for allowable costs. There is an increased risk that the charges do not represent the actual costs incurred. Questioned Costs: Known questionable cost $39,056 and the estimated questionable cost is projected to be $69,269. Context: See condition above for context of the finding. Identification as a Repeat Finding, If Applicable: Not applicable. Recommendation: We recommended the City to strengthen safeguarding of source documents to properly substantiate the charges made to the grant. Views of Responsible Officials: Management concurs the finding.
Reference Number: 2023-002 Prior Year Finding: No Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Department: Portsmouth Public Schools (PPS) Federal Program: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) Assistance Listing: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: None, 2021, 2022, 2023 Pass-Through Entity: Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Education Pass-Through Award Number and Period: H027A200107 (7/1/20-9/30/22) H027A210107 (7/1/21-9/30/23) H027X210107 (7/1/21-9/30/23) H027A220107 (4/17/23-9/30/23) H173A200107 (7/1/20-9/30/22) H173A210107 (7/1/21-9/30/23) H173X210107 (7/1/21-9/30/23) Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (Time and Effort Certifications) Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance, Maternal Non-Compliance Criteria or specific requirement: Compliance – Per 2 CFR section 403, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (f) Be adequately documented. See also § 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Control – Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), a non-federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. These internal controls should comply with the 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). Condition: PPS was unable to provide documentation supporting time and effort for employee’s salary charged to the grant. We were unable to support the allowable salary reported on the grant due to lack of time and effort certification. Context For 13 out of 40 employee’s salary selected for testing were not supported by time and effort certification. Questioned costs: $30,763, represents the employee’s salary charged to the federal program and not supported by time and effort certification. Cause: PPS did not maintain documentation supporting time and effort for employee pay charged to the grant. Effect: Failure to adhere to allowable cost requirements may result in PPS charging expenditures to the program that are not allowable. Recommendation: We recommend that PPS enhance its procedures and internal controls to ensure that it retains documentation supporting time and effort on federal grants and that this documentation is available for audit purposes. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding.
Reference Number: 2023-002 Prior Year Finding: No Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Department: Portsmouth Public Schools (PPS) Federal Program: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) Assistance Listing: 84.027, 84.173 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: None, 2021, 2022, 2023 Pass-Through Entity: Commonwealth of Virginia Department of Education Pass-Through Award Number and Period: H027A200107 (7/1/20-9/30/22) H027A210107 (7/1/21-9/30/23) H027X210107 (7/1/21-9/30/23) H027A220107 (4/17/23-9/30/23) H173A200107 (7/1/20-9/30/22) H173A210107 (7/1/21-9/30/23) H173X210107 (7/1/21-9/30/23) Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (Time and Effort Certifications) Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance, Maternal Non-Compliance Criteria or specific requirement: Compliance – Per 2 CFR section 403, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (f) Be adequately documented. See also § 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Control – Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), a non-federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. These internal controls should comply with the 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). Condition: PPS was unable to provide documentation supporting time and effort for employee’s salary charged to the grant. We were unable to support the allowable salary reported on the grant due to lack of time and effort certification. Context For 13 out of 40 employee’s salary selected for testing were not supported by time and effort certification. Questioned costs: $30,763, represents the employee’s salary charged to the federal program and not supported by time and effort certification. Cause: PPS did not maintain documentation supporting time and effort for employee pay charged to the grant. Effect: Failure to adhere to allowable cost requirements may result in PPS charging expenditures to the program that are not allowable. Recommendation: We recommend that PPS enhance its procedures and internal controls to ensure that it retains documentation supporting time and effort on federal grants and that this documentation is available for audit purposes. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding.
Finding number: 2023-012 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Programs: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance listing #: 21.027 Award year: 2023 Compliance requirement: Allowable Costs Criteria According to 2 CFR 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Condition The Federal Government requires that costs must be adequately documented and must be incurred during the approved budget period. During our testing, we noted the College failed to provide a copy of check or ACH payment information for 1 expenditure, out of a sample of 5. As a result, the College was unable to provide the proof of payment to support the expenditure is an allowable cost. Our sample was not, and was not intended to be, statistically valid. Cause The College failed to have the proper internal controls in place to keep the proof of payment to support the expenditure that was reimbursed from the federal award. Effect The invoice that was reimbursed from the federal award may not be an allowable cost. Questioned Costs $1,655 Identification as a Repeat Finding, if applicable Not applicable. Recommendation The College should implement internal control procedures to verify that reimbursement requests are only submitted for invoices that have been paid. View of Responsible Officials The College agrees with the finding.
Finding # 2023-001 – Reporting Type of Finding Significant Deficiency in Internal Control and Noncompliance ALN Title Economic Development Assistance ALN 11.307 Total Federal Expenditures $761,377 Federal Award Numbers ED22HDQ3070044, 07-79-07888, 07-79-07889, 07-79-07901, 07-79-07903, 07-79-07905 Federal Award Year October 1, 2022 through September 30, 2023 Federal Agency U.S. Department of Commerce – Economic Development Administration Criteria 2 CFR 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Subpart D section 200.300 and section 200.328 set forth requirements for reporting on award amounts by grantees. Southeast Conference (SEC) was awarded a direct federal grant greater than or equal to $30,000 and was therefore subject to Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) sub-award reporting requirements as outlined in the Office of Management and Budgets guidance issued August 13, 2020. As such, SEC was required to file a FFATA sub-award report by the end of the month following the month in which SEC awarded any sub-grant greater than or equal to $30,000 (Pub. L. No. 109-282 [FFATA] and Pub. L. No. 113-101 [DATA Act]). Condition and Context SEC did not submit timely or accurate reports to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) for its subawards as required by FFATA guidance. Questions Costs None. Effect SEC did not comply with the reporting requirements of Uniform Guidance and FFATA. Cause SEC’s internal controls over reporting were not sufficiently designed and implemented to ensure that staff were fully knowledgeable on when and how to report subaward amounts under FFATA. Recommendation SEC should provide training to staff for preparation of financial reports and design and implement systems to accurately and timely report subawards.
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that either 1) three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000 were obtained, 2) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods over $22,500 or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors: Saving Ourselves ($30,000), AGI Repair ($16,216), IXL ($19,218), Learning Systems Associates LLC ($25,425), AGC Education Inc. ($11,644), Apple ($163,505), Germ Solutions LLC ($160,070), Graham Security ($12,025), Curriculum Designers, Inc. ($27,875), RJ Rhodes Transit, Inc. ($24,845). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented and over $22,500 formal bidding procedures must be utilized. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, or 4) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. QUESTIONED COST: $490,823 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, and 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that either 1) three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000 were obtained, 2) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods over $22,500 or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors: Saving Ourselves ($30,000), AGI Repair ($16,216), IXL ($19,218), Learning Systems Associates LLC ($25,425), AGC Education Inc. ($11,644), Apple ($163,505), Germ Solutions LLC ($160,070), Graham Security ($12,025), Curriculum Designers, Inc. ($27,875), RJ Rhodes Transit, Inc. ($24,845). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented and over $22,500 formal bidding procedures must be utilized. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, or 4) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. QUESTIONED COST: $490,823 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, and 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that either 1) three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000 were obtained, 2) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods over $22,500 or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors: Saving Ourselves ($30,000), AGI Repair ($16,216), IXL ($19,218), Learning Systems Associates LLC ($25,425), AGC Education Inc. ($11,644), Apple ($163,505), Germ Solutions LLC ($160,070), Graham Security ($12,025), Curriculum Designers, Inc. ($27,875), RJ Rhodes Transit, Inc. ($24,845). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented and over $22,500 formal bidding procedures must be utilized. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, or 4) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. QUESTIONED COST: $490,823 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, and 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that either 1) three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000 were obtained, 2) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods over $22,500 or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors: Saving Ourselves ($30,000), AGI Repair ($16,216), IXL ($19,218), Learning Systems Associates LLC ($25,425), AGC Education Inc. ($11,644), Apple ($163,505), Germ Solutions LLC ($160,070), Graham Security ($12,025), Curriculum Designers, Inc. ($27,875), RJ Rhodes Transit, Inc. ($24,845). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented and over $22,500 formal bidding procedures must be utilized. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, or 4) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. QUESTIONED COST: $490,823 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, and 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
2023-006 Non-compliance with Compliance Requirements Program Name/ Assistance Listing Number: 93. 959 Block Grants for Prevention and Treatment of Substance Abuse and 93.788 Multiple Approach Response Strategies (MARS) Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services Federal Award Identification: Unknown Type of Finding: Material Weakness Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.305(b), non-Federal entities are responsible for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. According to 2 CFR §200.403, costs must meet the following general criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award concerning types or amounts of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity. (g) Be adequately documented. See also 2 CFR §200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Costs must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carryforward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to 2 CFR §200.308(e)(3). Condition: During the review of the schedule of expenditures of federal awards, the auditor noted the following conditions: 1. Non-Conforming Expenditures: An expenditure under the MARS Carry Over did not conform to the limitations set forth in the federal award budget. Specifically, $20,892 was charged for Garage Repairs, whereas the grant budget for equipment was only $1,200, designated specifically for two software purchases at $600 each. 2. Inadequate Documentation: a) The FASD Grant had a period that ended on March 14, 2023. Although the grant period was extended, this extension was not documented, b) A $26,383 FASD expenditure was reallocated to MARS 2.0 Carry Over without substantialjustification for the reclassification, and c) An adjustment of $24,044 was made from MARS 2.0 Carry Over FY 2022 without adequate supporting documentation. 3. Expenditures Outside the Approved Grant Period: a) the FASD total award of $340,000 was reported as fully expended in the 2023 fiscal year-end expenditure report (“Close-Out Report”) submitted to the Grants and Funding Management System on January 31, 2024. However, the Schedule of Federal Expenditure showed only $312,707 in expenditures. The remaining $27, 293 was indicated as a carryover for FY 2024. Of the $312,707 in expenditures, $71,277 were incurred after March 14, 2023, with only $21,395 falling within the 45-day closeout period following that date, b) $26,800 in unallowable costs were incurred under the MARS 2.0 Carry Over 45 days after the performance period ended on September 29, 2022, specifically for payroll processing, and c) $1,813 in costs were incurred before the performance period for the “Mars One-Pill Can Kill” grant dated February 1, 2023 to September 29, 2023. There was no prior grant. 4. Misclassification: $2,010 in MARS 3.0 expenditures were incorrectly classified under FASD. Cause of Condition: Insufficient understanding of program requirements. There is no formal monitoring of program expenditures on a periodic basis to ensure that the Organization’s expenditures and activities align with their grant budget and period of performance. Inconsistent adherence to record retention policies, resulting from the temporary hybrid working-from-home arrangements due to the pandemic, has led to insufficient support for all federal expenditures. The Organization lacks written policies and procedures for allocating expenditures across different programs. Effect: The current procedures for administering Federal funds are inadequately designed to ensure that costs and activities are managed in a manner consistent with the underlying agreements and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These deficiencies could lead to misstatements in the SEFA that are not corrected promptly and could result in the charging of unallowable costs. Questioned Cost: $179,117 Recommendation: We recommend the following actions: 1. Training: Program administrators should receive adequatetraining and acquire knowledge of the compliancerequirements for each specific program to ensure adherence to these requirements. 2. Periodic Program Monitoring: The organization should establish a periodic review process for each program budget to ensure alignment with each line item in the budget. 3. Formal Procedures: The organization should document its procedures for expense allocation to ensure consistency timeliness, and accuracy. 4. Adequate Staffing: The organization should ensure that processes are staffed with knowledgeable personnel capableof reviewing and adhering to established policies and procedures. Description of the Nature and Extent of Issues Reported: We consider the following materiality for consideration of material noncompliance for the major program 93.959 at 5% of the total awards expended amounting to $51,253. View of Responsible Official: Management agrees with the finding and will implement corrective action.
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that either 1) three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000 were obtained, 2) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods over $22,500 or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors: Saving Ourselves ($30,000), AGI Repair ($16,216), IXL ($19,218), Learning Systems Associates LLC ($25,425), AGC Education Inc. ($11,644), Apple ($163,505), Germ Solutions LLC ($160,070), Graham Security ($12,025), Curriculum Designers, Inc. ($27,875), RJ Rhodes Transit, Inc. ($24,845). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented and over $22,500 formal bidding procedures must be utilized. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, or 4) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. QUESTIONED COST: $490,823 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, and 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that either 1) three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000 were obtained, 2) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods over $22,500 or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors: Saving Ourselves ($30,000), AGI Repair ($16,216), IXL ($19,218), Learning Systems Associates LLC ($25,425), AGC Education Inc. ($11,644), Apple ($163,505), Germ Solutions LLC ($160,070), Graham Security ($12,025), Curriculum Designers, Inc. ($27,875), RJ Rhodes Transit, Inc. ($24,845). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented and over $22,500 formal bidding procedures must be utilized. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, or 4) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. QUESTIONED COST: $490,823 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, and 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that either 1) three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000 were obtained, 2) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods over $22,500 or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors: Saving Ourselves ($30,000), AGI Repair ($16,216), IXL ($19,218), Learning Systems Associates LLC ($25,425), AGC Education Inc. ($11,644), Apple ($163,505), Germ Solutions LLC ($160,070), Graham Security ($12,025), Curriculum Designers, Inc. ($27,875), RJ Rhodes Transit, Inc. ($24,845). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented and over $22,500 formal bidding procedures must be utilized. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, or 4) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. QUESTIONED COST: $490,823 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, and 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that either 1) three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000 were obtained, 2) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods over $22,500 or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors: Saving Ourselves ($30,000), AGI Repair ($16,216), IXL ($19,218), Learning Systems Associates LLC ($25,425), AGC Education Inc. ($11,644), Apple ($163,505), Germ Solutions LLC ($160,070), Graham Security ($12,025), Curriculum Designers, Inc. ($27,875), RJ Rhodes Transit, Inc. ($24,845). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented and over $22,500 formal bidding procedures must be utilized. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, or 4) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. QUESTIONED COST: $490,823 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, and 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that either 1) three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000 were obtained, 2) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods over $22,500 or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors: Saving Ourselves ($30,000), AGI Repair ($16,216), IXL ($19,218), Learning Systems Associates LLC ($25,425), AGC Education Inc. ($11,644), Apple ($163,505), Germ Solutions LLC ($160,070), Graham Security ($12,025), Curriculum Designers, Inc. ($27,875), RJ Rhodes Transit, Inc. ($24,845). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented and over $22,500 formal bidding procedures must be utilized. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, or 4) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. QUESTIONED COST: $490,823 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, and 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding. VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
Reference Number: 2023-019 Category of Finding: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency and Instance of Noncompliance State Administering Department: California Department of Social Services (CDSS) Assistance Listing Numbers: 96.001 Federal Program Title: Disability Insurance/SSI Cluster: Social Security Disability Insurance Federal Award Number and Year: 04-2204CADI00; 2022 Criteria Title 2 – Grants and Agreements. Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart D – Post Federal Award Requirements. Standards for Financial and Program Management. §200.303 Internal controls (2 CFR 200.303): The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Title 2 – Grants and Agreements. Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart E – Cost Principles. §200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. See §200.300 through §200.309. Condition The documentation for one of forty samples selected for testing did not agree to the payment disbursed to a provider for medical evidence of record (MER) services. The provider was overpaid by $5. Identification as a Repeat Finding This was not a repeat finding from the immediate prior year. Cause CDSS has represented that the cause was an input error in the Midas subledger when processing the vendor payment. Effect CDSS did not have appropriate oversight controls to ensure that the data entry was accurate. Accordingly, there is an increased risk for data entry directly affecting the amount reported on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards to be inaccurate. Questioned Costs Questioned costs are projected to be $54,398. Context The total MER expenditures for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023, were $4,432,781, which represents 1.8% of the total program expenditures of the Disability Insurance/SSI Cluster of $242,946,482. The sample was not a statistically valid sample. Recommendation CDSS should strengthen its controls over the review for accuracy of the provider invoice amounts input into Midas. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is reported in “Management’s Response and Corrective Action Plan” included in a separate section at the end of this report.