FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
Criteria: The Organization must (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that they are managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statues, 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). Condition: New Hampshire Department of Education (NHED) identified certain policies in its federal fiscal monitoring report dated November 28, 2023 that either needed updating or needed to be created. During our own audit procedures for the year ended December 31, 2023, we too noted certain of these policies lacking. Cause: The Organization does not have a dedicated accounting or grant management personnel. Effect: The Organization did not adequately establish and maintain effective internal controls. The lack of internal controls is non-compliant with 2 CFR 200.303, which could lead to additional compliance concerns and questioned costs. Questioned Costs: None Repeat finding: The same finding was reported during the program specific audit as of and for the year ended December 31, 2022 as 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend updating policies and procedures to include the requirements of Federal rules and laws for those transactions or activities that include Federal grant funds. As per NHED’s federal fiscal monitoring report, at a minimum, the following policies and procedures need to be created, updated, and/or implemented by the school: 1. Procurement Policy in accordance with updated 2 CFR 200.317-327. 2. Procurement Procedure in accordance with 2 CFR 200.317-327. 3. Time and Effort Procedure in accordance with 2 CFR 200.431. 4. Drug Free Workplace Policy in accordance with 34 CFR 84.200 and Drug Free Workplace Act of 1988 5. Inventory Management Procedure in accordance with 2 CFR 200.313(d) Views of Responsible Officials: All policies and procedures have since been vetted by an attorney and approved by the Board. The Executive Director will ensure that all policies and procedures stay current and are reviewed by the Board annually.
2023-005 Procurement Policies and Covered Transactions Compliance Requirement Procurement, Suspension, and Debarment Category Significant Deficiency in Internal Control and Noncompliance Federal Agency U.S. Department of the Treasury Pass-Through Entity Puerto Rico Fiscal Agency and Financial Advisory Authority ALN 21.027 Federal Program COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Agency U.S. Department of Homeland Security through the Federal Emergency Management Agency Pass-through Entity Central Office for Recovery, Reconstruction and Resiliency ALN 97.036 Federal Program Disaster Grants - Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) Criteria 2 CFR section 200.318 General procurement standards. (a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. 2 CFR section 180.220 Are any procurement contracts included as covered transactions? (a) Covered transactions under this part— (1) Do not include any procurement contracts awarded directly by a Federal agency; but (2) Do include some procurement contracts awarded by non-Federal participants in nonprocurement covered transactions. (b) Specifically, a contract for goods or services is a covered transaction if any of the following applies: (1) The contract is awarded by a participant in a nonprocurement transaction that is covered under § 180.210, and the amount of the contract is expected to equal or exceed $25,000. (2) The contract requires the consent of an official of a Federal agency. In that case, the contract, regardless of the amount, always is a covered transaction, and it does not matter who awarded it. For example, it could be a subcontract awarded by a contractor at a tier below a nonprocurement transaction, as shown in the appendix to this part. (3) The contract is for Federally-required audit services. (c) A subcontract also is a covered transaction if,— (1) It is awarded by a participant in a procurement transaction under a nonprocurement transaction of a Federal agency that extends the coverage of paragraph (b)(1) of this section to additional tiers of contracts (see the diagram in the appendix to this part showing that optional lower tier coverage); and (2) The value of the subcontract is expected to equal or exceed $25,000. Condition General Procurement Standards - Written Policies The Corporation has an outdated institutional procurement manual approved in 2014 that lacks written policies to ascertain compliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, or the terms and conditions of federal awards regarding procurement, suspension, and debarment requirements. Suspension and Debarment - Covered Transaction From a sample of eighteen disbursements, we selected eight disbursements to ascertain compliance with 2 CFR section 180.220, specifically regarding the inclusion of procurement contracts as covered transactions. We examined the procurement documents provided by the Corporation. From that sample, we identified that the Corporation did not perform the required verification process for covered transactions during the year ended June 30, 2023. Cause The Corporation lacks internal controls and policies to ensure compliance with federal procurement requirements. In addition, the Corporation relies on the procedures performed by the Administration of General Services to comply with procurement requirements. As a result, the Corporation did not maintain its own documentation. Effect Failure to comply with 2 CFR sections 200.318 and 180.220 may result in the Corporation facing temporary withholding of cash payments until the deficiency is corrected and/or suspension of future federal awards for the program. This noncompliance could also lead to the potential use of suspended or debarred suppliers. Questioned Costs None. Repeated Item Repeated, refer to Item No. 2022-003 in the Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings. Recommendation General Procurement Standards - Written Policies and Suspension and Debarment - Covered Transaction We recommend that the Corporation revise its internal procurement policies to align with current state statutes and regulations and create separate procurement policies that adhere to federal laws, regulations, and the terms and conditions of federal awards. These policies should incorporate the Procurement Standards outlined in 2 CFR sections 200.317 through 200.327, as applicable. Views of responsible officials Refer to Unaudited Corrective Action Plan (Unaudited)
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Leading Edge Acceleration Projects (LEAP) in Health Information Technology - 93.345 Award #90AX0034/01-00 Criteria or Specific Requirement – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment In accordance with 2 CFR Section 200.320, a non-federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures consistent with the standards of Sections 200.317 - 200.320. These standards include a micro-purchase threshold of $10,000 and policies for formal procurement and non-competitive procurement. Additionally, in accordance with 2 CFR Section 180.220, when a non-federal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the non-federal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR Section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. Condition – The Organization's Procurement Policy and Procedure is not in alignment with the requirements of 2 CFR Section 200.320. The policy does not document different procurement methods for various levels of purchases nor does it outline guidance on what are acceptable procurement methods, documentation to be retained, etc. Additionally, formalized documentation supporting the Organization is in compliance with policies and regulations supporting its procurement decisions did not exist. Lastly, there was no suspension and debarment check completed prior to purchases made with federal funds. Cause – The Organization's procurement policies are not in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, nor are there controls in place to ensure policies are followed, and lastly, there are no controls to ensure suspension and debarment checks are performed on vendors receiving federal funds. Effect – Federal funds could be used to make an unauthorized purchase including paying an entity that is suspended or debarred. Questioned Costs – Total questioned costs of $233,700 was identified and represents the value of reimbursements submitted for contracted services under one agreement which the procurement process could not be supported in line with the Uniform Guidance. Context – One purchase of $233,700 out of a total of multiple purchases totaling $239,391 subject to procurement requirements in 2023 was selected for testing. The Organization could not provide documentation supporting their purchase adhered to requirements for formal procurement or noncompetitive procurement outside of a general budget approval from the grantor. Furthermore, a check of the vendor's suspension and debarment status prior to the purchase was not completed. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if applicable – Not applicable Recommendation – Policies and procedures should be modified to ensure that procurement policies are in alignment with federal regulations, support for procurement decisions are maintained and suspension and debarment checks on vendors are performed prior to making purchases with federal funds and are in alignment with the Uniform Guidance requirements. Views of Responsible Official and Planned Corrective Actions – Management agrees with finding. See corrective action plan.
Condition: Upon inquiry of county personnel and a test of fifteen (15) disbursements totaling $810,215, the following instances of noncompliance were noted: • The County failed to document suspension and debarment of vendors for purchases over $25,000. • The County failed to have written standards of conduct that cover conflicts of interest and that govern the performance of its employees engaged in the selection, award, and administration of contract. Cause of Condition: Policies and procedures have not been designed and implemented to ensure federal disbursements are made in accordance with federal compliance requirements. Effect of Condition: This condition resulted in noncompliance with grant requirements and could result in a loss of federal funds. Recommendation: OSAI recommends the County gain an understanding of the grant requirements for this program and implement internal controls to ensure compliance with these grant requirements. Management Response: Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners: These procurement issues originated during the prior County Clerk’s administration, but the current leadership is focused on corrective measures. Together, we are: • developing a SOP to ensure vendor checks for suspension and debarment are conducted on all purchases over $25,000, • establishing written standards of conduct to address conflicts of interest and set clear procurement guidelines, • and enhancing oversight and review to ensure all procurement processes are fully compliant with federal regulations. Our goal is to build a consistent, transparent procurement framework that safeguards both compliance and public trust. County Clerk: I was not the County Clerk in office at this time. To correct this issue, the County plans to develop a SOP to timely and accurately track and report on the SEFA. The SOP will be reviewed, adopted, and monitored by the Board of County Commissioners. Criteria: Compliance and Reporting Guidance, State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (8. Procurement, Suspension & Debarment.) reads as follows: Recipients are responsible for ensuring that any procurement using SLFRF funds, or payments under procurement contracts using such funds, are consistent with the procurement standards set forth in the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200.317 through 2 CFR 200.327, unless stated otherwise by Treasury. As outlined in FAQ 13.15, only a subset of the Uniform Guidance requirements at 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart D (Post Federal Award Requirements) applies to recipients’ use of funds in the revenue loss eligible use category. The procurement standards set forth in the Uniform Guidance at 2 CRF 200.317 through 2 CRF 200.327 are not included in FAQ 13.15’s list of applicable Subpart D requirements that apply to recipients’ use of funds in the revenue loss eligible use category. The Uniform Guidance establishes in 2 CFR 200.319 that all procurement transactions for property or services must be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition, consistent with standards outlined in 2 CFR 200.320, which allows for non-competitive procurements only in certain circumstances. Recipients must have and use documented procurement procedures that are consistent with the standards outlined in 2 CFR 200.317 through 2 CFR 200.320. In addition, the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200.214, 2 CFR Part 180, and Treasury’s implementing regulations at 31 CFR Part 19, prohibit recipients from entering into contracts with suspended or debarred parties. The procurement standards outlined in the Uniform Guidance require an infrastructure for competitive bidding and contractor oversight, including maintaining written standards of conduct. Your organization must ensure adherence to all applicable local, State, and federal procurement laws and regulations. Further, 2 CFR § 200.319 Competition (d) reads as follows: The non-Federal entity must have written procedures for procurement transactions.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name: Assistance Listing Number 66.458, Environmental Protection Agency, Capitalization Grants for Clean Water State Revolving Funds Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 5749-01, Loan Period 06/18/2022-11/15/2024 Pass-through Entity: Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy Finance Division - Water Infrastructure Financing Section (EGLE) Type: Material weakness in internal control and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding: No Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200.318 (a), the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. In addition, per 2 CFR 200.318 (i), the non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. Condition: The Township did not utilize federal procurement requirements cited above for the engineering services for the State Clean Water Revolving Fund project. Identification of How Likely Questioned Costs Were Computed: The questioned costs were determined from actual engineering design and construction cost billed (federal portion) during the June 18, 2022 through March 31, 2023 period as summarized from the request for disbursement of funds submitted to EGLE. Known Questioned Costs: $295,854 Context: We tested the procurement of four contracts, 100% of the contracts, and identified one contract that did not follow federal procurement requirements. Cause/Effect: A number of years ago the Township bid engineering services and selected an engineer firm however there were issues with that firm therefore the Township replaced the original engineer with a local engineering firm that they have utilized on other Township projects. Therefore, they did not belief they need to bid engineering services for this project. The Township did not utilize federal procurement requirements to ensure fair and open competition and reasonable cost for engineering services for the State Clean Water Revolving Fund project. Recommendation: We recommend the Township follow federal procurement as required in 2 CFR 200.319 (d) for all contracts reimbursed with federal funds. View of responsible officials and planned corrective action plan: See attached corrective action plan.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name: Assistance Listing Number 66.458, Environmental Protection Agency, Capitalization Grants for Clean Water State Revolving Funds Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 5749-01, Loan Period 06/18/2022-11/15/2024 Pass-through Entity: Michigan Department of Environment, Great Lakes, and Energy Finance Division - Water Infrastructure Financing Section (EGLE) Type: Material weakness in internal control and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding: No Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200.318 (a), the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. In addition, per 2 CFR 200.318 (i), the non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. Condition: The Township did not utilize federal procurement requirements cited above for the engineering services for the State Clean Water Revolving Fund project. Identification of How Likely Questioned Costs Were Computed: The questioned costs were determined from actual engineering design and construction cost billed (federal portion) during the June 18, 2022 through March 31, 2023 period as summarized from the request for disbursement of funds submitted to EGLE. Known Questioned Costs: $295,854 Context: We tested the procurement of four contracts, 100% of the contracts, and identified one contract that did not follow federal procurement requirements. Cause/Effect: A number of years ago the Township bid engineering services and selected an engineer firm however there were issues with that firm therefore the Township replaced the original engineer with a local engineering firm that they have utilized on other Township projects. Therefore, they did not belief they need to bid engineering services for this project. The Township did not utilize federal procurement requirements to ensure fair and open competition and reasonable cost for engineering services for the State Clean Water Revolving Fund project. Recommendation: We recommend the Township follow federal procurement as required in 2 CFR 200.319 (d) for all contracts reimbursed with federal funds. View of responsible officials and planned corrective action plan: See attached corrective action plan.
Finding Type: Significant Deficiency Condition: Our audit found that JTCHS did not have adequate internal controls to ensure compliance with the federal procurement requirements. Specifically, JTCHS's procurement policies did not set a simplified acquisition threshold that was compliant with federal requirements. Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200.318(a), General Procurement Standards, “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§200.317 through 200.327. Cause: JTCHS was not aware that its formal written procurement policy was not in compliance with the federal guidelines. Effect: JTCHS was not in compliance with Federal requirements relating to procurement policy. Recommendation: JTCHS should review federal procurement guidelines and revise its procurement policy to be in compliance with the federal procurement guidelines. Responsible Official’s Response: Management will review adopt a procurement policy in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Planned Implementation Date of Corrective Action Plan: Management has started revising its policy and expects to have a revised procurement policy during fiscal year ending January 31, 2024.
Finding Type: Significant Deficiency Condition: Our audit found that JTCHS did not have adequate internal controls to ensure compliance with the federal procurement requirements. Specifically, JTCHS's procurement policies did not set a simplified acquisition threshold that was compliant with federal requirements. Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200.318(a), General Procurement Standards, “The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§200.317 through 200.327. Cause: JTCHS was not aware that its formal written procurement policy was not in compliance with the federal guidelines. Effect: JTCHS was not in compliance with Federal requirements relating to procurement policy. Recommendation: JTCHS should review federal procurement guidelines and revise its procurement policy to be in compliance with the federal procurement guidelines. Responsible Official’s Response: Management will review adopt a procurement policy in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Planned Implementation Date of Corrective Action Plan: Management has started revising its policy and expects to have a revised procurement policy during fiscal year ending January 31, 2024.
Management’s Response: The Home will update its purchasing policy to ensure the procurement standards in 2 CFR 200.317 – 200.326 are incorporated.
FINDING 2022-005 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): FY 2022 Pass-Through Entity: Department of the Treasury Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The City had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is customarily set at $250,000. However, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold of $150,000 or less for when small purchase procedures may be used. Indiana Code provides that the proper purchasing method would be the bidding process, unless the purchase meets certain other qualifications. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 CITY OF MUNCIE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Six vendors fell within the simplified acquisition threshold. All six vendors were selected for testing. For three of the vendors tested, there were no requests for proposals received and no documentation to support the history of the procurement, including the rationale for the method of procurement, nor selection of the contract. In addition, there was no documentation that a cost or price analysis was performed for the three contracts. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. . . ." 2 CFR 200.324(a) states: "The non-Federal entity must perform a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement action in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold including contract modifications. The method and degree of analysis is dependent on the facts surrounding the particular procurement situation, but as a starting point, the non-Federal entity must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use document procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. . . . INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 CITY OF MUNCIE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance award exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a non-competitive procurement can be used in accordance with § 200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: (1) Sealed bids. A procurement method in which bids are publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price) is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is the lowest in price. The sealed bids method is the preferred method for procuring construction, if the conditions. (i) In order for sealed bidding to be feasible, the following conditions should be present: (A) A complete, adequate, and realistic specification or purchase description is available; (B) Two or more responsible bidders are willing and able to compete effectively for the business; and (C) The procurement lends itself to a firm fixed price contract and the selection of the successful bidder can be made principally on the basis of price. (ii) If sealed bids are used, the following requirements apply: (A) Bids must be solicited from an adequate number of qualified sources, providing them sufficient response time prior to the date set for opening the bids, for local, and tribal governments, the invitation for bids must be publicly advertised; (B) The invitation for bids, which will include any specifications and pertinent attachments, must define the items or services in order for the bidder to properly respond; (C) All bids will be opened at the time and place prescribed in the invitation for bids, and for local and tribal governments, the bids must be opened publicly; (D) A firm fixed price contract award will be made in writing to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Where specified in bidding documents, factors such as discounts, transportation cost, and life cycle costs must be considered in determining which bid is lowest. Payment discounts will only be used to determine the low bid when prior experience indicates that such discounts are usually taken advantage of; and (E) Any or all bids may be rejected if there is a sound documented reason. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 CITY OF MUNCIE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause The system of internal controls as established by the City was not properly implemented to ensure that goods and services that exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold were properly procured. A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the City. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the City's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, proper procurement procedures were not adhered to for all vendors. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City establish a proper system of internal controls, and develop policies and procedures to ensure proper procurement procedures are adhered to for all purchases of good and services paid with federal awards. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
2022-001 U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Financial Assistance Listing #14.134 Mortgage Insurance Rental Housing Procurement, Suspension, and Debarment Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Criteria: 2 CRF 200.303(a) establishes that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides assurance that the entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. The non-Federal entity?s documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.327 which also requires documentation to be retained to detail the history of procurements. In addition, as outlined in 2 CFR 180, recipients must not utilize any vendor which is suspended or debarred or is otherwise excluded from the central contactor registry. Condition: The Project does not have a written procurement policy which conforms to Uniform Guidance as outlined above. During the year, management entered into transactions over the micropurchase threshold with eight vendors. Documentation was unable to be provided to support procurement compliance for seven vendors. In addition, there was one vendor with expenditures in excess of $25,000 and the Project did not verify the vendor against the central contractor registry prior to entering into the transaction or on a periodic basis to ensure that the vendor was not suspended or debarred. Cause: Management does not have a written procurement policy in accordance with Uniform Guidance. Certain procedures were in place; however, without a written policy to follow, the auditors were unable to determine if the procedures for procurement, suspension, and debarment compliance for the vendors was adequate. Effect: Inadequate controls over this area of compliance result in a reasonable possibility that the Project would not have the required documentation in place and would not be able to detect and correct noncompliance in a timely manner. Questioned Costs: We were unable to determine known questioned costs. During the year, management entered into transactions over the micropurchase threshold with eight vendors totaling approximately $92,000. Context/Sampling: No sampling was used. Procurement requirements were applicable to 8 transactions (all transactions were reviewed and tested) and suspension and debarment requirements were applicable to one vendor. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend management review the procurement policy requirements under Uniform Guidance and adopt a procurement policy in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements. In addition, we also recommend management implement formal procedures over procurement, suspension and debarment in accordance with that policy and retain sufficient documentation to support the process was followed. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and recommendation.
FINDING 2022-001 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - 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): SLFRP2971 Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not in place at the County to ensure compliance with the requirements related to the grant agreement and the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement The County's purchasing policy did not reflect applicable state laws and regulations. In addition, the policy did not include procedures to avoid acquisition of unnecessary or duplicative items, or procedures to ensure that all solicitations incorporate a clear and accurate description of the technical requirements for the material, product, or service to be procured. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), collecting a certification from that person, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Upon inquiry of the County to review the procedures in place for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded, the County divulged that it was unaware of the suspension and debarment requirements related to the SLFRF awards. A population of four covered transactions, totaling $990,897, that equaled or exceeded $25,000 paid from SLFRF funds during the audit period was identified. For each of the four transactions, the County did not verify the suspension and debarment status prior to payment due to the County not having any policies or procedures in place to verify that contractors and subrecipients were neither suspended nor debarred, or otherwise excluded or disqualified from participating in federal assistance programs or activities. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318(a) states: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non- Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in ?? 200.317 through 200.327." 2 CFR 200.214 states: "Non-federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. The regulations in 2 CFR part 180 restrict awards, subawards, and contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs or activities." 31 CFR 19.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the EPLS; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person if allowed by this rule; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the County. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the County's management of what should be done to effect internal control, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, vendors and subrecipients to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the provisions of Federal regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the County. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the County establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Additionally, we recommend the County establish documented procurement procedures consistent with state and local laws for the acquisition of property or services required under a federal award or subaward. The nonfederal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in ?? 200.317 through 200.327. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Finding 2022-002: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Identification of federal program: Program Title: Agriculture Research Basic and Applied Research Assistance Listing Number: 10.001 Award Identification: CA 59-8082-0-001 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture, Agriculture Research Service Criteria or Specific Requirement: Non-federal entities are prohibited from contracting with or making subawards under covered transactions to parties that are suspended or debarred. ?Covered transactions? include contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (e.g., grant or cooperative agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000 or meet certain other criteria as specified in 2 CFR section 180.220. All non-procurement transactions entered into by a pass-through entity (i.e., subawards to subrecipients), irrespective of award amount, are considered covered transactions, unless they are exempt as provided in 2 CFR section 180.215. When a non-federal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the non-federal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. This verification may be accomplished by (1) checking the System for Award Management (SAM) Exclusions maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA) and available at SAM.gov, (2) collecting a certification from the entity, or (3) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that entity (2 CFR section 180.300). Condition: During testing for the Fund?s controls on compliance over procurement and suspension and debarment, the Fund could not provide a procurement policy that is in compliance with prescribed standards in the Uniform Guidance. Additionally, suspension and debarment verifications were not performed prior to entering a covered transaction. Cause: The Fund has not updated its procurement policy to fully conform with Uniform Guidance, including policies over suspension and debarment. Effect: The Fund was not in compliance with the procurement policy requirements of Uniform Guidance, specifically around suspension and debarment. Questioned Costs: None Context: The Fund currently does not have a procurement policy that fully complies with Uniform Guidance requirements addressed in Chapter 2 Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: The Fund should ensure its documented procurement procedures conform to the procurement standards identified in 2 CFR section ?? 200.317 through 200.327, and also address suspension and debarment. Views of responsible individuals: Management concurs with and will implement the recommendation. See corrective action plan.
Finding 2022-004: Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Identification of the federal program: Equitable Sharing Program, ALN 16.922 Criteria: Compliance Requirement I, Procurement, Suspension and Debarment, Part 4 of the 2022 Compliance Supplement states that, ?Although 2 CFR section 200.317-200.327 are not applicable, the Guide, Section VI.A.., requires agencies to follow their own jurisdiction?s procurement policies? and that Suspension and Debarment ? 2 CFR section 180.200-225 is applicable. In addition, the 2022 Compliance Supplement states that ?program policy and procedures are set forth in the Guide to Equitable Sharing for State, Local, and Tribal Law Enforcement Agencies (Guide) (July 2018) as well as Equitable Sharing Wires (Wires). The September 30, 2021 edition of the Wire (used to update the Guide) states that, ??local law enforcement agencies participating in the Department of Justice and Department of Treasury Equitable Sharing Program must verify that vendors are registered in the System for Award Management (SAM) and are in good standing. A vendor in good standing means the vendor is not suspended or debarred from receiving federal funds. This requirement applies to all qualifying purchases. A qualifying purchase is one single payment or multiple payments to a vendor that exceeds $25,000 annually.? Condition: Condition 1: The County purchased office furniture and equipment from a vendor totaling $64,518. Under the County?s purchasing policy, competitive bids were required; however, competitive bid documents were not present in the county?s paid bills files and there was no other documentation of competitive bids being solicited or received, or justification for not receiving bids, which the policy requires to be documented if bids cannot be obtained. Condition 2: The purchase noted in Condition 1, plus an additional purchase of $34,702 from another vendor were above the $25,000 threshold for vendor verification in the SAM system. Neither vendor was verified by the County to be registered and in good standing in the SAM system. Cause: Condition 1: There was an inadvertent disregard of the bidding requirement by the department head for the $64,518 purchase of office equipment, since the purchase was from a regularly used county vendor who offers government discounts. When the disbursement was processed by the County Clerk, there was a failure to recognize there was a bidding requirement prior to the purchase and a failure of the internal control in disbursement processing which identifies purchase subject to county bid requirements and determines if bid documents are present in supporting documents. Condition 2: There were no policy, procedures or internal controls in place for this requirement, as county personnel were not aware of the requirement. The County Attorney has also been unable to establish an account with SAM, even after engaging a consultant to assist, as the system will not allow multiple log ins for the same entity. Effect of Potential Effect: Denial or extinguishment of sharing requests; temporary or permanent exclusion from the Program; freeze on receipt and/or expenditure of shared funds; return of funds or offsets from future sharing. Questioned Costs: The questioned costs for Condition 1 were $64,518, the amount of the transaction noted in Condition 1. The vendors for these two transactions were determined by the auditor to be vendors in good standing in the SAM system; therefore, Condition 2 does not result in additional questioned costs. Context: There were no other transactions in the population of 2022 expenditures in the major program meeting the county?s bidding threshold requirement or the SAM vendor verification threshold for this program. Recommendation: Condition 1: All department heads should follow the existing procurement policy of the county with respect to bidding. The existing review of documentation by the Clerk?s department to ensure compliance with county bidding requirements should always be properly performed and any exceptions to it referred to the governing body, if necessary, prior to processing of disbursement. Condition 2: A policy and procedure should be developed to ensure compliance with the requirement to verify qualifying status of vendors with annual transactions of $25,000 or more. If department heads are unable to access the SAM system to verify vendor qualification, there should be a request forwarded to the County Clerk to do the verification prior to order of goods or services. Views of responsible officials: The Clerk and the County Attorney concur.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Program Name: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Pass-Through Agency: State of Arizona, the Office of the Governor Pass-Through Number(s): GR-ARPA-HHF-030122-01 and GR-ARPA-090121-01 Award Period: January 1, 2022 ? November 30, 2024 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Other Matters Condition/Context: The Organization did not maintain a formalized and written procurement policy. In addition, the Organization did follow the required solicitation process as follows: 1. Small purchase procedures for one vendor, with costs between $10,000 and $250,000 related to grant management and financial oversight, were not performed. 2. Formal procurement methods or noncompetitive procurement procedures for one vendor, with costs exceeding $250,000 related to mental health services, were not performed. The Organization contracted with this mental health vendor prior to accepting the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds and subsequently did not go through formal procurement procedures. 3. For two vendors, procedures to determine that the vendors were not included on the suspended or debarred vendor list maintained by the General Services Administration, were not performed. Criteria or specific requirement: In accordance with the Compliance Supplement, Part 6 ? Internal Control, 2 CFR section 200.303 requires that nonfederal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal control over the federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.318 (a), the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in ?? 200.317 through 200.327. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.320 (a)(2)(i), the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and ?? 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. Small purchase procedures - the acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. Criteria or specific requirement (Continued) In accordance with 2 CFR 200.320 (b)(1 and 2), the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and ?? 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. Formal procurement methods - when the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance award exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a non-competitive procurement can be used in accordance with ? 200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: (1) sealed bids, or (2) proposals. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.320 (c), the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and ?? 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. Noncompetitive procurement. There are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement - can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply: (1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold (see paragraph (a)(1) of this section); (2) The item is available only from a single source; (3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; (4) The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non-Federal entity; or (5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. In accordance with 2 CFR 180.220, the non-Federal entities are prohibited from contracting with or making subawards under covered transactions to parties that are suspended or debarred. ?Covered transactions? include contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (e.g., grant or cooperative agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000 or meet certain other criteria as specified in 2 CFR section 180.220). All non-procurement transactions entered into by a pass-through entity (i.e., subawards to subrecipients), irrespective of award amount, are considered covered transactions, unless they are exempt as provided in 2 CFR section 180.215. Questioned costs: None Cause: The Organization did not have established procurement policies and did not have internal controls designed to ensure compliance with those policies. Effect: The Organization was not in compliance with the Compliance Supplement and the Code of Federal Regulations related to procurement and suspension and debarment provisions. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization adopt a formal and written procurement policy. Additionally, management should develop controls to help ensure procurement procedures are followed and to monitor the amount spent with vendors throughout the year to ensure procurement procedures are initiated when the vendor costs exceed the procurement thresholds. These procedures will help ensure compliance with Compliance Supplement and the Code of Federal Regulations related to procurement and suspension and debarment provisions. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the audit condition.
Finding 2022-002: Procurement Policy (Material Weakness) Information on the Federal Program: U.S. Department of State ALN 19.040 Criteria or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR Section 200.318 requires that the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in ?? 200.317 through 200.327. Condition: FCE does not have a formal written procurement policy that conforms to the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. As a result, no procurement files were maintained to document FCE's procurement actions. Questioned Costs: None Cause: FCE has no accounting policies and procedures in place to provide guidance to management on the documentary evidence requirements in accordance with proper internal controls and the Uniform Guidance. Effect or Potential Effect: Without either a procurement policy or procurement documentation, there is a risk that FCE did not perform a proper evaluation of each potential vendor whose costs were charged to federal programs. Recommendation: FCE should develop accounting policies and procedures to provide guidance to management regarding the proper internal controls over both financial reporting and compliance with federal awards. Included in those policies and procedures should be a procurement policy that conforms to the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Furthermore, FCE should maintain documentation in its files to provide evidence to support that it followed the procurement policy.
2 CFR 200.317 - 200.327 sets procurement standards for non-federal entities other than states. These non-federal entities must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable State and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable Federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. Small purchase procedures are used for purchases that exceed the micro-purchase amount but do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. According to the Authority's Procurement Policy, for small purhcases from $3,501 to $50,000, no less than three offerors shall be solicited to submit price quotations, which may be obtained orally by telephone, or in writing, as allowed by State and local laws. Further, contracts shall not be awarded to debarred, suspended, or ineliglbe contracts. Due to deficiencies in the Authority's internal controls over compliance requireements, eight percent of the procurements tested did not follwo the Authority's policy in regards to procurement as they did not obtain and maintain price quotations for small purchases. The Authority should review the uniform guidance regulations over procurement and consider increasing their thresholds based on uniform guidiance guidelines. Further, the Authority should follow their policy and procedures for procurement.
FINDING 2022-001 Procurement, Suspension and Debarment (Repeat Finding 2021-001) Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: 21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) Criteria: The Department of the Treasury?s Interim Final Rule (Effective May 17, 2021 through March 31, 2022) and the Final Rule (Effective April 1, 2022) encouraged the use of internal Procurement Policies and Procedures when procuring products and/or services. The Department of the Treasury?s Compliance and Reporting Guidance report (Effective June 24, 2021 through April 30, 2025) required recipients (i.e., City of Evanston) to ensure any procurement using CSLFRF funds to be consistent with the procurement standards set forth in the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200.317 through 2 CFR 200.327 as applicable. Procurement Standards of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Costs Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) state that all non-federal entities will follow Section 200.318 through Section 200.327. A. Section 200.320 identifies four methods of procurement to be followed, among the methods of procurement the below are three identified thresholds: (a) Informal ? micro purchases (any amount up to $10,000) (b) Informal ? small purchases ($10,000.01 to $249,999.99) (c) Formal ? sealed bids ($250,000 and above) (d) Noncompetitive procurement B. The City of Evanston Purchasing Manual requires the collection of three written quotes for any purchase between $2,500 and $25,000 purchased with federal grant funds, a formal bid process (Bid, RFP, RFQ) for any purchase $25,000 or above purchased with federal grant funds, and a justification memo for a sole source purchase for any amount above $2,500 purchased with federal grant funds. C. The City of Evanston Purchasing Manual requires that for purchases above $2,500 but less than $10,000, approval signature must be obtained from the Department Director. All purchases above $10,000 require approval signature from the City Manager. Purchases above $25,000 must also be approved by the City Council. D. Per Title 2 CFR section 180.300, participant entering into a covered transaction must verify that the person with whom it intends to do business is not excluded or disqualified by: (a) Checking SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. E. Title 2 CFR section 200.303 states the following regarding internal control: ?The auditee shall maintain internal control over Federal programs that provides reasonable assurance that the auditee is managing Federal awards in compliance with law, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements that could have a material effect on each of its Federal programs.? Condition/Context: 1. We tested nine purchase orders totaling $2,408,526. Our procedures revealed the following: a. Two (2) purchase orders in the amount of $27,739 and $150,525 respectively, were purchases greater than $25,000 each, and for which the City of Evanston did not complete a formal procurement process (competitively bid) following its own Purchasing Manual and/or obtain the required three quotations following Section 200.320 of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). b. For seven (7) purchase orders totaling $2,391,116, documentation demonstrating that suspension and debarment searches were performed could not be provided by the City of Evanston. c. For one (1) purchase order totaling $700,405, procurement documentation was not provided nor retained by the City of Evanston from third party procurement service provider. Cause: 1. The City of Evanston?s procurement policies do not include processes pertaining to monitoring and review procedures of procurement processes conducted by external procurement service providers to ensure compliance with all applicable procurement policies. 2. The City of Evanston?s procurement policies do not include processes pertaining to entity-wide suspension and debarment checks. 3. Where policies are in place for internal procurement they are not being followed. Effect: City of Evanston is not in compliance with Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 and the requirements outlined in the City of Evanston Purchasing Manual as it relates to purchases above $25,000. Additionally, the effect of noncompliance can result in questioned costs. Recommendation: We recommend that City of Evanston: a. Implement structures to monitor external procurement service providers to ensure their procurement methods comply with applicable federal compliance requirements. b. Further expand Purchasing Manual to include policies and procedures for suspension and debarment searches and retaining support for suspension and debarment check. c. Communicate and re-enforce its procurement policies and procedures to ensure compliance with applicable requirements. d. Centralize the procurement process to ensure all departments are following applicable procedures in a uniform manner. Views of Responsible Officials: The City of Evanston implemented a revised Purchasing Manual as of March 2023. We agree with the auditor?s recommendations and will further review and revise the Purchasing Manual and communicate and reinforce policies and procedures to all departments to ensure compliance with applicable requirements.
FINDING 2022-001 Procurement, Suspension and Debarment (Repeat Finding 2021-001) Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: 21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) Criteria: The Department of the Treasury?s Interim Final Rule (Effective May 17, 2021 through March 31, 2022) and the Final Rule (Effective April 1, 2022) encouraged the use of internal Procurement Policies and Procedures when procuring products and/or services. The Department of the Treasury?s Compliance and Reporting Guidance report (Effective June 24, 2021 through April 30, 2025) required recipients (i.e., City of Evanston) to ensure any procurement using CSLFRF funds to be consistent with the procurement standards set forth in the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200.317 through 2 CFR 200.327 as applicable. Procurement Standards of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Costs Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) state that all non-federal entities will follow Section 200.318 through Section 200.327. A. Section 200.320 identifies four methods of procurement to be followed, among the methods of procurement the below are three identified thresholds: (a) Informal ? micro purchases (any amount up to $10,000) (b) Informal ? small purchases ($10,000.01 to $249,999.99) (c) Formal ? sealed bids ($250,000 and above) (d) Noncompetitive procurement B. The City of Evanston Purchasing Manual requires the collection of three written quotes for any purchase between $2,500 and $25,000 purchased with federal grant funds, a formal bid process (Bid, RFP, RFQ) for any purchase $25,000 or above purchased with federal grant funds, and a justification memo for a sole source purchase for any amount above $2,500 purchased with federal grant funds. C. The City of Evanston Purchasing Manual requires that for purchases above $2,500 but less than $10,000, approval signature must be obtained from the Department Director. All purchases above $10,000 require approval signature from the City Manager. Purchases above $25,000 must also be approved by the City Council. D. Per Title 2 CFR section 180.300, participant entering into a covered transaction must verify that the person with whom it intends to do business is not excluded or disqualified by: (a) Checking SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. E. Title 2 CFR section 200.303 states the following regarding internal control: ?The auditee shall maintain internal control over Federal programs that provides reasonable assurance that the auditee is managing Federal awards in compliance with law, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements that could have a material effect on each of its Federal programs.? Condition/Context: 1. We tested nine purchase orders totaling $2,408,526. Our procedures revealed the following: a. Two (2) purchase orders in the amount of $27,739 and $150,525 respectively, were purchases greater than $25,000 each, and for which the City of Evanston did not complete a formal procurement process (competitively bid) following its own Purchasing Manual and/or obtain the required three quotations following Section 200.320 of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). b. For seven (7) purchase orders totaling $2,391,116, documentation demonstrating that suspension and debarment searches were performed could not be provided by the City of Evanston. c. For one (1) purchase order totaling $700,405, procurement documentation was not provided nor retained by the City of Evanston from third party procurement service provider. Cause: 1. The City of Evanston?s procurement policies do not include processes pertaining to monitoring and review procedures of procurement processes conducted by external procurement service providers to ensure compliance with all applicable procurement policies. 2. The City of Evanston?s procurement policies do not include processes pertaining to entity-wide suspension and debarment checks. 3. Where policies are in place for internal procurement they are not being followed. Effect: City of Evanston is not in compliance with Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 and the requirements outlined in the City of Evanston Purchasing Manual as it relates to purchases above $25,000. Additionally, the effect of noncompliance can result in questioned costs. Recommendation: We recommend that City of Evanston: a. Implement structures to monitor external procurement service providers to ensure their procurement methods comply with applicable federal compliance requirements. b. Further expand Purchasing Manual to include policies and procedures for suspension and debarment searches and retaining support for suspension and debarment check. c. Communicate and re-enforce its procurement policies and procedures to ensure compliance with applicable requirements. d. Centralize the procurement process to ensure all departments are following applicable procedures in a uniform manner. Views of Responsible Officials: The City of Evanston implemented a revised Purchasing Manual as of March 2023. We agree with the auditor?s recommendations and will further review and revise the Purchasing Manual and communicate and reinforce policies and procedures to all departments to ensure compliance with applicable requirements.
FINDING 2022-001 Procurement, Suspension and Debarment (Repeat Finding 2021-001) Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: 21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) Criteria: The Department of the Treasury?s Interim Final Rule (Effective May 17, 2021 through March 31, 2022) and the Final Rule (Effective April 1, 2022) encouraged the use of internal Procurement Policies and Procedures when procuring products and/or services. The Department of the Treasury?s Compliance and Reporting Guidance report (Effective June 24, 2021 through April 30, 2025) required recipients (i.e., City of Evanston) to ensure any procurement using CSLFRF funds to be consistent with the procurement standards set forth in the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200.317 through 2 CFR 200.327 as applicable. Procurement Standards of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Costs Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) state that all non-federal entities will follow Section 200.318 through Section 200.327. A. Section 200.320 identifies four methods of procurement to be followed, among the methods of procurement the below are three identified thresholds: (a) Informal ? micro purchases (any amount up to $10,000) (b) Informal ? small purchases ($10,000.01 to $249,999.99) (c) Formal ? sealed bids ($250,000 and above) (d) Noncompetitive procurement B. The City of Evanston Purchasing Manual requires the collection of three written quotes for any purchase between $2,500 and $25,000 purchased with federal grant funds, a formal bid process (Bid, RFP, RFQ) for any purchase $25,000 or above purchased with federal grant funds, and a justification memo for a sole source purchase for any amount above $2,500 purchased with federal grant funds. C. The City of Evanston Purchasing Manual requires that for purchases above $2,500 but less than $10,000, approval signature must be obtained from the Department Director. All purchases above $10,000 require approval signature from the City Manager. Purchases above $25,000 must also be approved by the City Council. D. Per Title 2 CFR section 180.300, participant entering into a covered transaction must verify that the person with whom it intends to do business is not excluded or disqualified by: (a) Checking SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. E. Title 2 CFR section 200.303 states the following regarding internal control: ?The auditee shall maintain internal control over Federal programs that provides reasonable assurance that the auditee is managing Federal awards in compliance with law, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements that could have a material effect on each of its Federal programs.? Condition/Context: 1. We tested nine purchase orders totaling $2,408,526. Our procedures revealed the following: a. Two (2) purchase orders in the amount of $27,739 and $150,525 respectively, were purchases greater than $25,000 each, and for which the City of Evanston did not complete a formal procurement process (competitively bid) following its own Purchasing Manual and/or obtain the required three quotations following Section 200.320 of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). b. For seven (7) purchase orders totaling $2,391,116, documentation demonstrating that suspension and debarment searches were performed could not be provided by the City of Evanston. c. For one (1) purchase order totaling $700,405, procurement documentation was not provided nor retained by the City of Evanston from third party procurement service provider. Cause: 1. The City of Evanston?s procurement policies do not include processes pertaining to monitoring and review procedures of procurement processes conducted by external procurement service providers to ensure compliance with all applicable procurement policies. 2. The City of Evanston?s procurement policies do not include processes pertaining to entity-wide suspension and debarment checks. 3. Where policies are in place for internal procurement they are not being followed. Effect: City of Evanston is not in compliance with Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 and the requirements outlined in the City of Evanston Purchasing Manual as it relates to purchases above $25,000. Additionally, the effect of noncompliance can result in questioned costs. Recommendation: We recommend that City of Evanston: a. Implement structures to monitor external procurement service providers to ensure their procurement methods comply with applicable federal compliance requirements. b. Further expand Purchasing Manual to include policies and procedures for suspension and debarment searches and retaining support for suspension and debarment check. c. Communicate and re-enforce its procurement policies and procedures to ensure compliance with applicable requirements. d. Centralize the procurement process to ensure all departments are following applicable procedures in a uniform manner. Views of Responsible Officials: The City of Evanston implemented a revised Purchasing Manual as of March 2023. We agree with the auditor?s recommendations and will further review and revise the Purchasing Manual and communicate and reinforce policies and procedures to all departments to ensure compliance with applicable requirements.
FINDING 2022-001 Procurement, Suspension and Debarment (Repeat Finding 2021-001) Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: 21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) Criteria: The Department of the Treasury?s Interim Final Rule (Effective May 17, 2021 through March 31, 2022) and the Final Rule (Effective April 1, 2022) encouraged the use of internal Procurement Policies and Procedures when procuring products and/or services. The Department of the Treasury?s Compliance and Reporting Guidance report (Effective June 24, 2021 through April 30, 2025) required recipients (i.e., City of Evanston) to ensure any procurement using CSLFRF funds to be consistent with the procurement standards set forth in the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200.317 through 2 CFR 200.327 as applicable. Procurement Standards of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Costs Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) state that all non-federal entities will follow Section 200.318 through Section 200.327. A. Section 200.320 identifies four methods of procurement to be followed, among the methods of procurement the below are three identified thresholds: (a) Informal ? micro purchases (any amount up to $10,000) (b) Informal ? small purchases ($10,000.01 to $249,999.99) (c) Formal ? sealed bids ($250,000 and above) (d) Noncompetitive procurement B. The City of Evanston Purchasing Manual requires the collection of three written quotes for any purchase between $2,500 and $25,000 purchased with federal grant funds, a formal bid process (Bid, RFP, RFQ) for any purchase $25,000 or above purchased with federal grant funds, and a justification memo for a sole source purchase for any amount above $2,500 purchased with federal grant funds. C. The City of Evanston Purchasing Manual requires that for purchases above $2,500 but less than $10,000, approval signature must be obtained from the Department Director. All purchases above $10,000 require approval signature from the City Manager. Purchases above $25,000 must also be approved by the City Council. D. Per Title 2 CFR section 180.300, participant entering into a covered transaction must verify that the person with whom it intends to do business is not excluded or disqualified by: (a) Checking SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. E. Title 2 CFR section 200.303 states the following regarding internal control: ?The auditee shall maintain internal control over Federal programs that provides reasonable assurance that the auditee is managing Federal awards in compliance with law, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements that could have a material effect on each of its Federal programs.? Condition/Context: 1. We tested nine purchase orders totaling $2,408,526. Our procedures revealed the following: a. Two (2) purchase orders in the amount of $27,739 and $150,525 respectively, were purchases greater than $25,000 each, and for which the City of Evanston did not complete a formal procurement process (competitively bid) following its own Purchasing Manual and/or obtain the required three quotations following Section 200.320 of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). b. For seven (7) purchase orders totaling $2,391,116, documentation demonstrating that suspension and debarment searches were performed could not be provided by the City of Evanston. c. For one (1) purchase order totaling $700,405, procurement documentation was not provided nor retained by the City of Evanston from third party procurement service provider. Cause: 1. The City of Evanston?s procurement policies do not include processes pertaining to monitoring and review procedures of procurement processes conducted by external procurement service providers to ensure compliance with all applicable procurement policies. 2. The City of Evanston?s procurement policies do not include processes pertaining to entity-wide suspension and debarment checks. 3. Where policies are in place for internal procurement they are not being followed. Effect: City of Evanston is not in compliance with Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 and the requirements outlined in the City of Evanston Purchasing Manual as it relates to purchases above $25,000. Additionally, the effect of noncompliance can result in questioned costs. Recommendation: We recommend that City of Evanston: a. Implement structures to monitor external procurement service providers to ensure their procurement methods comply with applicable federal compliance requirements. b. Further expand Purchasing Manual to include policies and procedures for suspension and debarment searches and retaining support for suspension and debarment check. c. Communicate and re-enforce its procurement policies and procedures to ensure compliance with applicable requirements. d. Centralize the procurement process to ensure all departments are following applicable procedures in a uniform manner. Views of Responsible Officials: The City of Evanston implemented a revised Purchasing Manual as of March 2023. We agree with the auditor?s recommendations and will further review and revise the Purchasing Manual and communicate and reinforce policies and procedures to all departments to ensure compliance with applicable requirements.
FINDING 2022-001 Procurement, Suspension and Debarment (Repeat Finding 2021-001) Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: 21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) Criteria: The Department of the Treasury?s Interim Final Rule (Effective May 17, 2021 through March 31, 2022) and the Final Rule (Effective April 1, 2022) encouraged the use of internal Procurement Policies and Procedures when procuring products and/or services. The Department of the Treasury?s Compliance and Reporting Guidance report (Effective June 24, 2021 through April 30, 2025) required recipients (i.e., City of Evanston) to ensure any procurement using CSLFRF funds to be consistent with the procurement standards set forth in the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200.317 through 2 CFR 200.327 as applicable. Procurement Standards of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Costs Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) state that all non-federal entities will follow Section 200.318 through Section 200.327. A. Section 200.320 identifies four methods of procurement to be followed, among the methods of procurement the below are three identified thresholds: (a) Informal ? micro purchases (any amount up to $10,000) (b) Informal ? small purchases ($10,000.01 to $249,999.99) (c) Formal ? sealed bids ($250,000 and above) (d) Noncompetitive procurement B. The City of Evanston Purchasing Manual requires the collection of three written quotes for any purchase between $2,500 and $25,000 purchased with federal grant funds, a formal bid process (Bid, RFP, RFQ) for any purchase $25,000 or above purchased with federal grant funds, and a justification memo for a sole source purchase for any amount above $2,500 purchased with federal grant funds. C. The City of Evanston Purchasing Manual requires that for purchases above $2,500 but less than $10,000, approval signature must be obtained from the Department Director. All purchases above $10,000 require approval signature from the City Manager. Purchases above $25,000 must also be approved by the City Council. D. Per Title 2 CFR section 180.300, participant entering into a covered transaction must verify that the person with whom it intends to do business is not excluded or disqualified by: (a) Checking SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. E. Title 2 CFR section 200.303 states the following regarding internal control: ?The auditee shall maintain internal control over Federal programs that provides reasonable assurance that the auditee is managing Federal awards in compliance with law, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements that could have a material effect on each of its Federal programs.? Condition/Context: 1. We tested nine purchase orders totaling $2,408,526. Our procedures revealed the following: a. Two (2) purchase orders in the amount of $27,739 and $150,525 respectively, were purchases greater than $25,000 each, and for which the City of Evanston did not complete a formal procurement process (competitively bid) following its own Purchasing Manual and/or obtain the required three quotations following Section 200.320 of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). b. For seven (7) purchase orders totaling $2,391,116, documentation demonstrating that suspension and debarment searches were performed could not be provided by the City of Evanston. c. For one (1) purchase order totaling $700,405, procurement documentation was not provided nor retained by the City of Evanston from third party procurement service provider. Cause: 1. The City of Evanston?s procurement policies do not include processes pertaining to monitoring and review procedures of procurement processes conducted by external procurement service providers to ensure compliance with all applicable procurement policies. 2. The City of Evanston?s procurement policies do not include processes pertaining to entity-wide suspension and debarment checks. 3. Where policies are in place for internal procurement they are not being followed. Effect: City of Evanston is not in compliance with Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 and the requirements outlined in the City of Evanston Purchasing Manual as it relates to purchases above $25,000. Additionally, the effect of noncompliance can result in questioned costs. Recommendation: We recommend that City of Evanston: a. Implement structures to monitor external procurement service providers to ensure their procurement methods comply with applicable federal compliance requirements. b. Further expand Purchasing Manual to include policies and procedures for suspension and debarment searches and retaining support for suspension and debarment check. c. Communicate and re-enforce its procurement policies and procedures to ensure compliance with applicable requirements. d. Centralize the procurement process to ensure all departments are following applicable procedures in a uniform manner. Views of Responsible Officials: The City of Evanston implemented a revised Purchasing Manual as of March 2023. We agree with the auditor?s recommendations and will further review and revise the Purchasing Manual and communicate and reinforce policies and procedures to all departments to ensure compliance with applicable requirements.
FINDING 2022-001 Procurement, Suspension and Debarment (Repeat Finding 2021-001) Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: 21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) Criteria: The Department of the Treasury?s Interim Final Rule (Effective May 17, 2021 through March 31, 2022) and the Final Rule (Effective April 1, 2022) encouraged the use of internal Procurement Policies and Procedures when procuring products and/or services. The Department of the Treasury?s Compliance and Reporting Guidance report (Effective June 24, 2021 through April 30, 2025) required recipients (i.e., City of Evanston) to ensure any procurement using CSLFRF funds to be consistent with the procurement standards set forth in the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200.317 through 2 CFR 200.327 as applicable. Procurement Standards of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Costs Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) state that all non-federal entities will follow Section 200.318 through Section 200.327. A. Section 200.320 identifies four methods of procurement to be followed, among the methods of procurement the below are three identified thresholds: (a) Informal ? micro purchases (any amount up to $10,000) (b) Informal ? small purchases ($10,000.01 to $249,999.99) (c) Formal ? sealed bids ($250,000 and above) (d) Noncompetitive procurement B. The City of Evanston Purchasing Manual requires the collection of three written quotes for any purchase between $2,500 and $25,000 purchased with federal grant funds, a formal bid process (Bid, RFP, RFQ) for any purchase $25,000 or above purchased with federal grant funds, and a justification memo for a sole source purchase for any amount above $2,500 purchased with federal grant funds. C. The City of Evanston Purchasing Manual requires that for purchases above $2,500 but less than $10,000, approval signature must be obtained from the Department Director. All purchases above $10,000 require approval signature from the City Manager. Purchases above $25,000 must also be approved by the City Council. D. Per Title 2 CFR section 180.300, participant entering into a covered transaction must verify that the person with whom it intends to do business is not excluded or disqualified by: (a) Checking SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. E. Title 2 CFR section 200.303 states the following regarding internal control: ?The auditee shall maintain internal control over Federal programs that provides reasonable assurance that the auditee is managing Federal awards in compliance with law, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements that could have a material effect on each of its Federal programs.? Condition/Context: 1. We tested nine purchase orders totaling $2,408,526. Our procedures revealed the following: a. Two (2) purchase orders in the amount of $27,739 and $150,525 respectively, were purchases greater than $25,000 each, and for which the City of Evanston did not complete a formal procurement process (competitively bid) following its own Purchasing Manual and/or obtain the required three quotations following Section 200.320 of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR). b. For seven (7) purchase orders totaling $2,391,116, documentation demonstrating that suspension and debarment searches were performed could not be provided by the City of Evanston. c. For one (1) purchase order totaling $700,405, procurement documentation was not provided nor retained by the City of Evanston from third party procurement service provider. Cause: 1. The City of Evanston?s procurement policies do not include processes pertaining to monitoring and review procedures of procurement processes conducted by external procurement service providers to ensure compliance with all applicable procurement policies. 2. The City of Evanston?s procurement policies do not include processes pertaining to entity-wide suspension and debarment checks. 3. Where policies are in place for internal procurement they are not being followed. Effect: City of Evanston is not in compliance with Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 and the requirements outlined in the City of Evanston Purchasing Manual as it relates to purchases above $25,000. Additionally, the effect of noncompliance can result in questioned costs. Recommendation: We recommend that City of Evanston: a. Implement structures to monitor external procurement service providers to ensure their procurement methods comply with applicable federal compliance requirements. b. Further expand Purchasing Manual to include policies and procedures for suspension and debarment searches and retaining support for suspension and debarment check. c. Communicate and re-enforce its procurement policies and procedures to ensure compliance with applicable requirements. d. Centralize the procurement process to ensure all departments are following applicable procedures in a uniform manner. Views of Responsible Officials: The City of Evanston implemented a revised Purchasing Manual as of March 2023. We agree with the auditor?s recommendations and will further review and revise the Purchasing Manual and communicate and reinforce policies and procedures to all departments to ensure compliance with applicable requirements.
Finding 2022-003 - Procurement (Compliance) ALN No.: 93.829 - Section 223 Demonstration Programs to Improve Community Mental Health Services Award Year: January 1, 2022 ? December 31, 2022 Federal Agency: United States Department of Health and Human Services Pass Through Entity: Not applicable Criteria: Under 2 CFR Part 200.318(a) of the Uniform Guidance the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in 2 CFR Part 200.317 through 200.327. Condition/Context: South Shore does not have documented procurement procedures in accordance with Uniform guidance standards. Cause: South Shore did not adequately document in form of a written procurement policy, however they were aware of and were following the federal procurement standards under the Uniform Guidance. Effect: South Shore has not complied with the specific requirements for procurement as described in the Uniform Guidance. South Shore is following applicable standards but did not have a formally documented policy. Questioned Costs: None. Recommendation: South Shore should develop a documented procurement policy in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the recommendation and plans to develop a formal procurement policy.
FINDING 2022-003 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - 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 Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): CY 2022, SWIF220329 Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The Town received a total State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) allocation of $140,378 directly from the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury). During the audit period, the Town expended these funds out of the revenue loss use category. The Treasury has decided that only some of the provisions in the Uniform Guidance apply to the revenue loss use category, as such, the provisions related to procurement, per the Treasury, are not applicable to the revenue loss use category. Therefore, the Town's use of its SLFRF funds received directly from the Treasury are not subject to procurement testing. In addition, the Town received an SLFRF allocation of $800,000 from the Indiana Finance Authority through the State Water Infrastructure or Transportation (SWIF) grant program. These funds are subject to the procurement provisions as outlined in the Uniform Guidance. The suspension and debarment provisions apply to all SLFRF funds regardless of use category or who (Treasury or other entity) awarded the funds. Procurement - Policy (SWIF award) Non-federal entities must follow procurement standards set out in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in addition to its own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements idented in 2 CFR Part 200. The Town did not have its own documented procurement procedures or policies that reflected applicable state laws and regulations or federal statutes for procuring goods and services paid with federal funds. Procurement - Simplified Acquisition (SWIF award) When the value of the procurement for property or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), or a lower threshold established by a non-federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. The SAT is typically set at $250,000; however, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold, and, therefore, the SAT is set at $150,000. Formal procurement methods require adherence to documented procedures and formal methods such as sealed bids or proposals. Two vendors were identified that fell within the SAT. Both vendors were selected for testing. One of the vendors, paid with SWIF funds, was originally contracted for $84,840, which is below the simplified acquisition threshold. At that time, the Town obtained quotes as would have been required at the small purchase threshold. However, the Town elected to change the scope of the project once SLFRF funds were awarded to cover additional improvements. As the scope of the project changed and the total price increased to over $429,000, more than 20 percent above of the original contract price, the project should have been reviewed and bid out. Since the new total of the project was over the SAT and formal procurement methods were not adhered to, this vendor was not properly procured. Suspension and Debarment (Treasury award) Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contracts and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), collecting a certification from that person, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Due to the Treasury's determination that the revenue loss eligible use category does not give rise to subawards, the Town was only required to comply with suspension and debarment requirements related to covered transactions. Upon inquiry of the Town to determine its policies and procedures related to suspension and debarment requirements for the money received directly from the Treasury, the Town stated procedures had not been performed to ensure vendors were not suspended or debarred prior to entering into covered transactions. Two covered transactions for goods or services that equaled or exceeded $25,000 paid from the direct SLFRF funds during the audit period were identified. Both transactions were examined to determine whether the Town verified the suspension and debarment status of the vendors prior to payment. The Town had not performed procedures to ensure the two vendors were not suspended or debarred, or otherwise excluded or disqualified from participating in federal assistance programs or activities for suspension or debarment. The lack of internal controls was a systemic issue throughout the audit period. The noncompliance for procurement was isolated to the SLFRF SWIF funding, and the noncompliance for suspension and debarment was isolated to the SLFRF direct funding. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318(a) states: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non- Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in ?? 200.317 through 200.327." 2 CFR 200.320(b) states in part: "Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under the Federal financial assistance award exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a non-competitive procurement can be used in accordance with ? 200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: (1) Sealed bids. . . . (ii) If sealed bids are used the following requirements apply: (A) Bids must be solicited from an adequate number of qualified sources . . . (2) Proposals. . . . (i) Requests for proposals must be publicized and identify all evaluation factors and their relative importance. Proposals must be solicited from an adequate number qualified offerors. . . ." 2 CFR 200.320(c) states: "Noncompetitive procurement. There are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply: (1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold (see paragraph (a)(1) of this section); (2) The items is available only from a single source; (3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; (4) The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non-Federal entity; or (5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate." Indiana Code 5-22-10-9 states: "A purchasing agent may make a special purchase when purchase of the required supplies or services under another purchasing method under this article would seriously impair the functioning of the using agency." 31 CFR 19.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the EPLS; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person if allowed by this rule; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed or implemented, which includes segregation of key functions, by management of the Town to ensure that policies and procedures were in place related to procurement and suspension and debarment. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the Town's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded and contracts exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold were not properly bid. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions or the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the Town. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the Town establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure proper procurement procedures are followed and that contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-003 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - 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 Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): CY 2022, SWIF220329 Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The Town received a total State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) allocation of $140,378 directly from the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Treasury). During the audit period, the Town expended these funds out of the revenue loss use category. The Treasury has decided that only some of the provisions in the Uniform Guidance apply to the revenue loss use category, as such, the provisions related to procurement, per the Treasury, are not applicable to the revenue loss use category. Therefore, the Town's use of its SLFRF funds received directly from the Treasury are not subject to procurement testing. In addition, the Town received an SLFRF allocation of $800,000 from the Indiana Finance Authority through the State Water Infrastructure or Transportation (SWIF) grant program. These funds are subject to the procurement provisions as outlined in the Uniform Guidance. The suspension and debarment provisions apply to all SLFRF funds regardless of use category or who (Treasury or other entity) awarded the funds. Procurement - Policy (SWIF award) Non-federal entities must follow procurement standards set out in the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) in addition to its own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements idented in 2 CFR Part 200. The Town did not have its own documented procurement procedures or policies that reflected applicable state laws and regulations or federal statutes for procuring goods and services paid with federal funds. Procurement - Simplified Acquisition (SWIF award) When the value of the procurement for property or services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), or a lower threshold established by a non-federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. The SAT is typically set at $250,000; however, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold, and, therefore, the SAT is set at $150,000. Formal procurement methods require adherence to documented procedures and formal methods such as sealed bids or proposals. Two vendors were identified that fell within the SAT. Both vendors were selected for testing. One of the vendors, paid with SWIF funds, was originally contracted for $84,840, which is below the simplified acquisition threshold. At that time, the Town obtained quotes as would have been required at the small purchase threshold. However, the Town elected to change the scope of the project once SLFRF funds were awarded to cover additional improvements. As the scope of the project changed and the total price increased to over $429,000, more than 20 percent above of the original contract price, the project should have been reviewed and bid out. Since the new total of the project was over the SAT and formal procurement methods were not adhered to, this vendor was not properly procured. Suspension and Debarment (Treasury award) Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contracts and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), collecting a certification from that person, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Due to the Treasury's determination that the revenue loss eligible use category does not give rise to subawards, the Town was only required to comply with suspension and debarment requirements related to covered transactions. Upon inquiry of the Town to determine its policies and procedures related to suspension and debarment requirements for the money received directly from the Treasury, the Town stated procedures had not been performed to ensure vendors were not suspended or debarred prior to entering into covered transactions. Two covered transactions for goods or services that equaled or exceeded $25,000 paid from the direct SLFRF funds during the audit period were identified. Both transactions were examined to determine whether the Town verified the suspension and debarment status of the vendors prior to payment. The Town had not performed procedures to ensure the two vendors were not suspended or debarred, or otherwise excluded or disqualified from participating in federal assistance programs or activities for suspension or debarment. The lack of internal controls was a systemic issue throughout the audit period. The noncompliance for procurement was isolated to the SLFRF SWIF funding, and the noncompliance for suspension and debarment was isolated to the SLFRF direct funding. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318(a) states: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non- Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in ?? 200.317 through 200.327." 2 CFR 200.320(b) states in part: "Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under the Federal financial assistance award exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a non-competitive procurement can be used in accordance with ? 200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: (1) Sealed bids. . . . (ii) If sealed bids are used the following requirements apply: (A) Bids must be solicited from an adequate number of qualified sources . . . (2) Proposals. . . . (i) Requests for proposals must be publicized and identify all evaluation factors and their relative importance. Proposals must be solicited from an adequate number qualified offerors. . . ." 2 CFR 200.320(c) states: "Noncompetitive procurement. There are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply: (1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold (see paragraph (a)(1) of this section); (2) The items is available only from a single source; (3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; (4) The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non-Federal entity; or (5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate." Indiana Code 5-22-10-9 states: "A purchasing agent may make a special purchase when purchase of the required supplies or services under another purchasing method under this article would seriously impair the functioning of the using agency." 31 CFR 19.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the EPLS; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person if allowed by this rule; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed or implemented, which includes segregation of key functions, by management of the Town to ensure that policies and procedures were in place related to procurement and suspension and debarment. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the Town's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded and contracts exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold were not properly bid. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions or the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the Town. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the Town establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure proper procurement procedures are followed and that contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Finding No. 2022-004: Procurement Policy ? Material Weakness in Internal Control Over Financial Reporting; U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Rare Disorders: Research, Surveillance, Health Promotion, and Education; Assistance Listing Number 93.315 Condition There is no evidence of a documented formal procurement policy with regards to federal grant awards and expenditures, no documented support that a competitive price analysis for vendors and organizations funded with federal grant funds were performed and no evidence that suspension and debarment verifications were performed for certain vendors and organizations, as required by the general procurement standards of the Uniform Guidance. Context We selected four samples which were deemed sole sourced by management and noted no written documentation for this conclusion or evidence of suspension or debarment verification being performed was maintained in the file. Based on our discussions with management, they were not aware of the Uniform Guidance requirements with regards to procurement. Criteria Under the Uniform Guidance Section 200.318, General Procurement Standards, a non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity?s documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in Sections 200.317 through 200.327. These sections include policies and procedures related to competition, informal and formal procurement methods and noncompetitive procurement also known as sole source. Under Uniform Guidance Section 200.214, Suspension and Debarment, and 2 CFR Part 180, non-federal entities are required to verify that vendors are not suspended or debarred from participating in federal funds. Cause Management stated it was not aware of the Uniform Guidance requirements with regards to procurement and, therefore, did not develop a procurement policy that includes the provisions of the general procurement standards required under the Uniform Guidance. Effect Charges relating to vendor services and sub-awards that were charged to the federal award may not be in accordance with the specific compliance requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs $97,078, representing total sub-awards and consulting expenses paid during the year. Repeat Finding No. Recommendation We recommend that the Association establish a written procurement policy governing contracts with vendors that will be reimbursed by federal grants to incorporate all of the provisions included in the general procurement standards of the Uniform Guidance Section 200.318 and the debarment and suspension regulations of Uniform Guidance Section 200.214. We also recommend that a review of all existing vendor or sub-awardee contract files be performed to ensure that the documentation as required under the Uniform Guidance is maintained in the files. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action See corrective action plan.
Finding 2022-001: Procurement policy and related contract This finding is a repeat finding of 2021-001 Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.318 ? General Procurement Standards, requires non-Federal entity to have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in ?? 200.317 through 200.327. Condition: We reviewed the water utility's procurement policy and service contracts with costs reimbursed during 2022, noting they did not contain necessary federal language related to conflicts of interest and debarment and suspension. Cause: The water utility has not received federal funding in the past and did not update their procurement policy when they sought federal funding for the Great Lakes Water Supply project. Additionally, service contracts were entered into prior to receiving federal funds. Effect: Without adequate control of contract language the water utility could enter into contracts related to the Great Lakes Water Supply project that do not qualify for federal reimbursement. Questioned Costs: None noted. Recommendation: We recommend the water utility review its procurement policy and make necessary updates to be in compliance with federal standards. Additionally, we recommend the utility enter into contract addendums related to contracts previously executed without required federal language. Management Response: Waukesha Water utility management has worked closely with WIFIA to craft contracts that include all necessary language prior to releasing RFPs for construction contracts. WIFIA was presented all service contracts to review prior to reimbursements received in fiscal year 2022. The finance department is working to update the procurement policy to ensure necessary federal language is included. The finance department will also work with service contractors to execute contract addendums.
2022-005 Assistance Listing Number 21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Department of Treasury North Dakota State Water Commission Procurement Suspension & Debarment 2 CFR Part 200.318 Criteria 2 CFR Part 200.318 states that a non-Federal entity must have and use documented procedures, consistent with state, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of 2 CFR part 200.317 through 200.327. Condition District does not have a written procurement policy in place. Cause The District has not approved a written procurement policy. Effect Non-compliance with Procurement Suspension & Debarment compliance requirements. Questioned Costs Not Applicable Repeat Finding This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation We recommend for the board of the District to create and implement a procurement policy that adheres to state and local regulations as well as 2 CFR Part 200.317 through 200.327. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions The District will create and approve a procurement policy that adheres to state and local regulations as well as 2 CFR Part 200.317 through 200.327.
Finding 2022-006 Procurement, Suspension, and Debarment – Material Weakness. Criteria: In accordance with §200.318, the non-federal entity must use its own documented procurement procedures which reflect applicable laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal law and the standards identified. Additionally, the nonfederal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of the procurement. These records are required to 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. All procurement transactions must be conducted in in accordance with §200.317 through §200.327. In accordance with §200.214 non-federal entities cannot enter into awards, subawards, or contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in federal assistance programs or activities. Non-federal entities must either check for exclusions in the System for Award Management (SAM); collect a certification from the entity or add a clause or condition to the covered transaction with the entity prior to entering into a covered transaction with a non-federal entity. Condition: The Organization also has standard procurement procedures in place guiding purchasing decisions. However, due to need for expediency in choosing a contract that is partially funded by the federal award, the board of directors approved waiving the normal bidding process. The Organization also did not perform or document suspension and debarment checks on prospective vendors and subrecipients. Cause: The Organization’s personnel did not ensure to follow documented policies and procedures for selecting a contractor that were in compliance with the CFR 200. Additionally, the Organization did not have adequate internal controls in place to identify the need to ensure a check for suspended or debarred vendors on contractors occurred and was documented prior to entering into those agreements. Effect: Failure to maintain policies for vendor selection process and failure to obtain vendor solicitation for procurements is noncompliance with federal regulations. This leads to the possibility that resources were purchased from vendors who were suspended and/or debarred. Questioned Costs: Unknown Repeat Finding: Not applicable as the Organization is a first time auditee. Recommendation: Standard forms should be updated to incorporate procurement and suspension and debarment criteria for both vendors and subrecipients. Controls should be implemented to ensure that the procurement decisions and suspension and debarment checks are reviewed by an appropriate member of management and are properly stored for future reference. Views of Responsible Official: See Corrective Action Plan.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Program Name: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: N/A Pass-Through Agency: State of Arizona, the Office of the Governor Pass-Through Number(s): GR-ARPA-AHCA-050122-01 Award Period: May 1, 2022 - June 30, 2024 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Other Matters Condition/Context: The following compliance matters were noted over procurement: 1. The Association did not maintain a formalized and written procurement policy. 2. Twelve vendor purchases for workforce development training, with costs between $10,000 and $15,000 each, were selected for testing. However, the Association did not follow the required solicitation or bidding procedures for any of its workforce development training vendors or program. The Association awarded contracts to all vendors within the state that elected to participate in the program. 3. For three of three vendors tested, procedures to determine that the vendors were not included on the suspended or debarred vendor list maintained by the General Services Administration were not performed. Criteria or specific requirement: In accordance with the Compliance Supplement, Part 6 – Internal Control, 2 CFR section 200.303 requires that nonfederal entities receiving federal awards establish and maintain internal control over the federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.318 (a), the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.320 (a)(2)(i), the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. Small purchase procedures - the acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. Criteria or specific requirement (Continued) In accordance with 2 CFR 200.320 (b)(1 and 2), the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. Formal procurement methods - when the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance award exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a non-competitive procurement can be used in accordance with § 200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: (1) sealed bids, or (2) proposals. In accordance with 2 CFR 200.320 (c), the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. Noncompetitive procurement: there are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply: (1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold (see paragraph (a)(1) of this section); (2) The item is available only from a single source; (3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; (4) The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non-Federal entity; or (5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. In accordance with 2 CFR 180.220, the non-Federal entities are prohibited from contracting with or making subawards under covered transactions to parties that are suspended or debarred. “Covered transactions” include contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (e.g., grant or cooperative agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000 or meet certain other criteria as specified in 2 CFR section 180.220). All non-procurement transactions entered into by a pass-through entity (i.e., subawards to subrecipients), irrespective of award amount, are considered covered transactions, unless they are exempt as provided in 2 CFR section 180.215. Questioned costs: None. Cause: The Organization did not have established procurement policies and did not have internal controls designed to ensure compliance with those policies. Management awarded training contracts to all vendors who agreed to participate in the grant award program. Effect: The Organization was not in compliance with the Compliance Supplement and the Code of Federal Regulations related to procurement and suspension and debarment provisions. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization adopt a formal and written procurement policy. Additionally, management should develop controls to help ensure procurement procedures are followed and to monitor the amount spent with vendors throughout the year to ensure procurement procedures are initiated when the vendor costs exceed the procurement thresholds. These procedures will help ensure compliance with Compliance Supplement and the Code of Federal Regulations related to procurement and suspension and debarment provisions. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the audit condition.
Finding 2022–003: Procurement Federal Department: U.S. Department of Treasury Pass-through Agencies: Cook County, Illinois and Women's Business Development Center COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, Federal Assistance Listing Number 21.027 Criteria 2 CFR 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 Section 200.318, General procurement standards (a) states “the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in Section 200.317 through 200.327.” Section 200.318 (i) states “the non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price.” SDA’s Fiscal Policies and Procedures Manual updated July 21, 2022 (“the Manual”) states “Procurement shall be made using one of the following methods: 1) Micro and Small Purchase Threshold; 2) Competitive Sealed Bids and Competitive Negotiations and 3) Non-Competitive Negotiations. All methods of procurement, when funded by federal grants or contracts, must follow procurement requirements contained in the OMB, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Costs Principles, and Audit Requirements for federal awards. Any purchases over $10,000 must bid competitively if subject to a single federal audit.” In addition, the Manual states “purchases related to Federally funded grants over $10,000 will be bid through either a Request for Proposal (RFP) or Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process. In addition, Request for Information (RFI) process may be used to help inform the development of either RFP, RFQ or other forms of procurement. Awards will be awarded to responses that meet the outlined criteria and reflect the lowest responsible bid. Contractors will be excluded from conducting business with the SDA if the contractor has been debarred and/or suspended from conducting business with the federal government. On a regular basis, the SDA will check vendors for any debarment status change on the federal System for Award Management (SAM). All source documents supporting any given transaction (e.g., receipts, invoices, and RFP data) will be retained and filed with SDA contract files in a centralized location. At a minimum, source document data must be sufficient to establish the basis for selection, the basis for the cost (including the reasonableness of cost), the rationale for the method of procurement and selection of contract type, and the basis for payment.” Condition During the current audit period, SDA did not adequately ensure federally funded contract issued to vendors followed federal regulations and its internal policy, which includes maintaining documents to support its procurement decisions. Cause Based on our discussions with management, SDA completed the RFQ process for this vendor but did not maintain the documentation of the decision-making process and scoring as outlined in its procurement policy. The documentation was deleted by a staff member who left the organization. Effect The failure to maintain adequate documentation to support the procurement of federally funded contracts is a violation of federal regulations. Questioned Costs None. Context During the test of procurement, SDA management identified two contracts with expenditures over the $10,000 threshold requiring competitive bid per its internal policy. For one contract, management noted that procurement was completed in 2021, hence outside the audit period. For the second contract, we noted that while an RFQ was obtained from the contractor, there was no evidence to support the basis for contractor selection (based on evaluation criteria and scoring outlined in the RFQ), the basis for the contract price, and evidence that debarment/suspension verification checks were performed prior to awarding the contract. Identification of Repeated Findings None. Recommendation We recommend that SDA’s management adhere to its written policy and maintain documentation to support all management decisions related to federally funded procurements to comply with federal regulations. Also, SDA should consider creating a checklist/internal form to document its procurement decisions and related approvals, as required. We also recommend that SDA develop procedures to identify all federally funded contracts let/awarded during the fiscal year to ensure compliance with its internal policy. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action SDA agrees with the finding and recommendation. See SDA’s Corrective Action Plan on pages 40–44.
Finding 2022–003: Procurement Federal Department: U.S. Department of Treasury Pass-through Agencies: Cook County, Illinois and Women's Business Development Center COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, Federal Assistance Listing Number 21.027 Criteria 2 CFR 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 Section 200.318, General procurement standards (a) states “the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in Section 200.317 through 200.327.” Section 200.318 (i) states “the non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price.” SDA’s Fiscal Policies and Procedures Manual updated July 21, 2022 (“the Manual”) states “Procurement shall be made using one of the following methods: 1) Micro and Small Purchase Threshold; 2) Competitive Sealed Bids and Competitive Negotiations and 3) Non-Competitive Negotiations. All methods of procurement, when funded by federal grants or contracts, must follow procurement requirements contained in the OMB, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Costs Principles, and Audit Requirements for federal awards. Any purchases over $10,000 must bid competitively if subject to a single federal audit.” In addition, the Manual states “purchases related to Federally funded grants over $10,000 will be bid through either a Request for Proposal (RFP) or Request for Qualifications (RFQ) process. In addition, Request for Information (RFI) process may be used to help inform the development of either RFP, RFQ or other forms of procurement. Awards will be awarded to responses that meet the outlined criteria and reflect the lowest responsible bid. Contractors will be excluded from conducting business with the SDA if the contractor has been debarred and/or suspended from conducting business with the federal government. On a regular basis, the SDA will check vendors for any debarment status change on the federal System for Award Management (SAM). All source documents supporting any given transaction (e.g., receipts, invoices, and RFP data) will be retained and filed with SDA contract files in a centralized location. At a minimum, source document data must be sufficient to establish the basis for selection, the basis for the cost (including the reasonableness of cost), the rationale for the method of procurement and selection of contract type, and the basis for payment.” Condition During the current audit period, SDA did not adequately ensure federally funded contract issued to vendors followed federal regulations and its internal policy, which includes maintaining documents to support its procurement decisions. Cause Based on our discussions with management, SDA completed the RFQ process for this vendor but did not maintain the documentation of the decision-making process and scoring as outlined in its procurement policy. The documentation was deleted by a staff member who left the organization. Effect The failure to maintain adequate documentation to support the procurement of federally funded contracts is a violation of federal regulations. Questioned Costs None. Context During the test of procurement, SDA management identified two contracts with expenditures over the $10,000 threshold requiring competitive bid per its internal policy. For one contract, management noted that procurement was completed in 2021, hence outside the audit period. For the second contract, we noted that while an RFQ was obtained from the contractor, there was no evidence to support the basis for contractor selection (based on evaluation criteria and scoring outlined in the RFQ), the basis for the contract price, and evidence that debarment/suspension verification checks were performed prior to awarding the contract. Identification of Repeated Findings None. Recommendation We recommend that SDA’s management adhere to its written policy and maintain documentation to support all management decisions related to federally funded procurements to comply with federal regulations. Also, SDA should consider creating a checklist/internal form to document its procurement decisions and related approvals, as required. We also recommend that SDA develop procedures to identify all federally funded contracts let/awarded during the fiscal year to ensure compliance with its internal policy. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action SDA agrees with the finding and recommendation. See SDA’s Corrective Action Plan on pages 40–44.
Finding 2022-003: Lack of Documented Procurement Procedures U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Section 223 Demonstration Programs for Improving Community Mental Health Services – Assistance Listing No. 93.829 Compliance Findings: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (I) Criteria: The Standard Terms and Conditons for all SAMHSA’s awards requires that grantees comply with Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulation (CFR) section 200.318 through 200.321. In accordance with 2 CFR section 200.320, a non-federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of 2 CFR section 200.317 through 200.320 for any method of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a federal award or sub-award. Condition: The Organization does not have documented procurement procedures that incorporate all the requirements of 2 CFR section 200.317 through 200.320. Cause: Unknown. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: The Organization is not in compliance with 2 CFR section 200.320 or the terms of the grant agreement. Identification of Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization adopt a written procurement policy which includes all requirements of 2 CFR section 200.317 through 200.320. Views of Responsible Officials: The Organization agrees with the finding and will adopt a documented procurement policy consistent with the standards of 2 CFR section 200.317 through 200.320 to use for procurement of the acquisition of property or services required under federal awards or sub-awards. Additional details can be found in the Organization’s Corrective Action Plan.
Finding 2022-002: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Assistance Listing Number: 19.510 Federal Program: U.S. Refugee Admissions Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of State Pass-Through Entity: Church World Service Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria: Per guidance 2 CFR section 200.320, non-Federal entities must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of 2 CFR sections 200.320, 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319. Condition: We noted Team Rubicon’s procurement policy was missing key detail, including procurement procedures related to conflicts of interest, the search for suspended and debarred parties, and approved methods of procurement, including the specific situations where noncompetitive procurement is appropriate. Cause: The error was primarily due to a misunderstanding of certain federal compliance requirements. Effect or Potential Effect: A failure to identify federal compliance requirements could result in Team Rubicon not being in compliance with federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of federal awards. Questioned Costs: None noted Context: During the year ended December 31, 2022, Team Rubicon was a recipient of a federal award, making Team Rubicon a subrecipient of the award and subject to certain federal compliance requirements including Procurement and Suspension and Debarment. Repeat Finding: Not applicable Recommendation: Management is responsible for establishing controls and procedures to ensure compliance with federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal awards. Views of Responsible Official: Management agrees and acknowledges the finding.
Program: Continuum of Care, Emergency Solutions Grant Program Federal Financial Assistance Listing No.:14.267, 14.231 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-through: Sacramento Steps Forward, Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance Award Year: 2022 Compliance Requirement: Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Grant Award Number: CA0955L9T032007, CA0955L9T032108, CA0143L9T032013, CA0143L9T032114, CA1303L9T032006, CA1303L9T032107, DHA-PRTS-NM-06-22, DHA-NM-03-22, DHA-NM-03-23, DHA-NM-08-23, DHA-NM-10-23 Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Controls Over Compliance Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303(a) of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides assurance that the entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and conditions of the federal award. The nonfederal entity’s documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.327. 2 CFR 200 Appendix II requires certain provisions be included in contracts if criteria are met. As outlined in 2 CFR 180, recipients must not utilize any contractor which is suspended or debarred or is otherwise excluded from the central contractor registry. Condition Found: The Organization’s procurement policy did not include all the required elements as outlined in the Uniform Guidance. Additionally, the Organization did not retain documentation to support the procedures performed to ensure compliance with suspension and debarment requirements. Questioned Costs: No questioned costs were identified as a result of our procedures. Context/ Sampling: Suspension and debarment was applicable to 13 contractors totaling $1,661,410 under the Continuum of Care Program and six contractors totaling $253,310 under the Emergency Solutions Grant Program. We tested all contractors. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Effect: Lack of complete procurement, suspension, and debarment policies and not retaining documentation to support compliance with suspension and debarment requirements could result in noncompliance with Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Organization does not typically receive federal financial assistance that is subject to procurement and suspension and debarment regulations; consequently, certain elements required by the Uniform Guidance were missing. Recommendation: We recommend that management develop a written procurement policy that conforms with Uniform Guidance. In addition, we recommend that management implement procedures and control processes to retain documentation supporting compliance with major federal program compliance requirements regarding suspension and debarment. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees. See separately issued Corrective Action Plan.
Program: Continuum of Care, Emergency Solutions Grant Program Federal Financial Assistance Listing No.:14.267, 14.231 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-through: Sacramento Steps Forward, Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance Award Year: 2022 Compliance Requirement: Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Grant Award Number: CA0955L9T032007, CA0955L9T032108, CA0143L9T032013, CA0143L9T032114, CA1303L9T032006, CA1303L9T032107, DHA-PRTS-NM-06-22, DHA-NM-03-22, DHA-NM-03-23, DHA-NM-08-23, DHA-NM-10-23 Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Controls Over Compliance Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303(a) of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides assurance that the entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and conditions of the federal award. The nonfederal entity’s documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.327. 2 CFR 200 Appendix II requires certain provisions be included in contracts if criteria are met. As outlined in 2 CFR 180, recipients must not utilize any contractor which is suspended or debarred or is otherwise excluded from the central contractor registry. Condition Found: The Organization’s procurement policy did not include all the required elements as outlined in the Uniform Guidance. Additionally, the Organization did not retain documentation to support the procedures performed to ensure compliance with suspension and debarment requirements. Questioned Costs: No questioned costs were identified as a result of our procedures. Context/ Sampling: Suspension and debarment was applicable to 13 contractors totaling $1,661,410 under the Continuum of Care Program and six contractors totaling $253,310 under the Emergency Solutions Grant Program. We tested all contractors. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Effect: Lack of complete procurement, suspension, and debarment policies and not retaining documentation to support compliance with suspension and debarment requirements could result in noncompliance with Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Organization does not typically receive federal financial assistance that is subject to procurement and suspension and debarment regulations; consequently, certain elements required by the Uniform Guidance were missing. Recommendation: We recommend that management develop a written procurement policy that conforms with Uniform Guidance. In addition, we recommend that management implement procedures and control processes to retain documentation supporting compliance with major federal program compliance requirements regarding suspension and debarment. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees. See separately issued Corrective Action Plan.
Program: Continuum of Care, Emergency Solutions Grant Program Federal Financial Assistance Listing No.:14.267, 14.231 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-through: Sacramento Steps Forward, Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance Award Year: 2022 Compliance Requirement: Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Grant Award Number: CA0955L9T032007, CA0955L9T032108, CA0143L9T032013, CA0143L9T032114, CA1303L9T032006, CA1303L9T032107, DHA-PRTS-NM-06-22, DHA-NM-03-22, DHA-NM-03-23, DHA-NM-08-23, DHA-NM-10-23 Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Controls Over Compliance Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303(a) of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides assurance that the entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and conditions of the federal award. The nonfederal entity’s documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.327. 2 CFR 200 Appendix II requires certain provisions be included in contracts if criteria are met. As outlined in 2 CFR 180, recipients must not utilize any contractor which is suspended or debarred or is otherwise excluded from the central contractor registry. Condition Found: The Organization’s procurement policy did not include all the required elements as outlined in the Uniform Guidance. Additionally, the Organization did not retain documentation to support the procedures performed to ensure compliance with suspension and debarment requirements. Questioned Costs: No questioned costs were identified as a result of our procedures. Context/ Sampling: Suspension and debarment was applicable to 13 contractors totaling $1,661,410 under the Continuum of Care Program and six contractors totaling $253,310 under the Emergency Solutions Grant Program. We tested all contractors. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Effect: Lack of complete procurement, suspension, and debarment policies and not retaining documentation to support compliance with suspension and debarment requirements could result in noncompliance with Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Organization does not typically receive federal financial assistance that is subject to procurement and suspension and debarment regulations; consequently, certain elements required by the Uniform Guidance were missing. Recommendation: We recommend that management develop a written procurement policy that conforms with Uniform Guidance. In addition, we recommend that management implement procedures and control processes to retain documentation supporting compliance with major federal program compliance requirements regarding suspension and debarment. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees. See separately issued Corrective Action Plan.
Program: Continuum of Care, Emergency Solutions Grant Program Federal Financial Assistance Listing No.:14.267, 14.231 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Pass-through: Sacramento Steps Forward, Sacramento County Department of Human Assistance Award Year: 2022 Compliance Requirement: Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Grant Award Number: CA0955L9T032007, CA0955L9T032108, CA0143L9T032013, CA0143L9T032114, CA1303L9T032006, CA1303L9T032107, DHA-PRTS-NM-06-22, DHA-NM-03-22, DHA-NM-03-23, DHA-NM-08-23, DHA-NM-10-23 Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Controls Over Compliance Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303(a) of Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes that the auditee must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides assurance that the entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and conditions of the federal award. The nonfederal entity’s documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.327. 2 CFR 200 Appendix II requires certain provisions be included in contracts if criteria are met. As outlined in 2 CFR 180, recipients must not utilize any contractor which is suspended or debarred or is otherwise excluded from the central contractor registry. Condition Found: The Organization’s procurement policy did not include all the required elements as outlined in the Uniform Guidance. Additionally, the Organization did not retain documentation to support the procedures performed to ensure compliance with suspension and debarment requirements. Questioned Costs: No questioned costs were identified as a result of our procedures. Context/ Sampling: Suspension and debarment was applicable to 13 contractors totaling $1,661,410 under the Continuum of Care Program and six contractors totaling $253,310 under the Emergency Solutions Grant Program. We tested all contractors. Repeat Finding from Prior Years: No. Effect: Lack of complete procurement, suspension, and debarment policies and not retaining documentation to support compliance with suspension and debarment requirements could result in noncompliance with Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Organization does not typically receive federal financial assistance that is subject to procurement and suspension and debarment regulations; consequently, certain elements required by the Uniform Guidance were missing. Recommendation: We recommend that management develop a written procurement policy that conforms with Uniform Guidance. In addition, we recommend that management implement procedures and control processes to retain documentation supporting compliance with major federal program compliance requirements regarding suspension and debarment. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees. See separately issued Corrective Action Plan.