Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: Research and Development Cluster Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, states that 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. Furthermore: §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, states that procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when certain requirements have been met. Additionally, §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award states that non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. These regulations 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. The non-Federal entity must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified, by (a) checking SAM Exclusions; (b) collecting a certification from that person; (c) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Condition: During our audit, we noted that while FASEB has formal procurement policies under §200.318(i) and §200.320(f), it did not provide sufficient records detailing the procurement history or justification for noncompetitive selections in our sample. Additionally, FASEB lacks formal policies on suspension and debarment, and SAM exclusion screening documentation was not provided for the sampled contracts and vendors. Cause: FASEB’s procedures did not provide for the formalization and retention of procurement records and vendor screenings consistent with the expectations outlined in 2 CFR 200. Effect or Potential Effect: Purchases of goods and services could be made above the prevailing market rates if the prescribed procurement procedures are not adhered to. Finally, FASEB could inadvertently enter into a contractual relationship with an entity that is suspended, debarred or otherwise included on the US Federal sanction list. Questioned Costs: N/A. Context: Our audit work in this area consisted of internal control testwork over a random sample of expenditures. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations, and thus, are statistically valid samples. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We then recommend that FASEB develop and adhere to formal policies (as applicable) related to § 200.318 (i) General procurement standards, §200.320 (f) Methods of procurement to be followed, as well as §200.213 Reporting a determination that a non-Federal entity is not qualified for a Federal award. All procurement actions and SAM exclusion screenings should be clearly documented in writing and maintained in the vendor or contractor files.
Finding 2024-001 Federal Program: Formula Grants for Rural Areas and Tribal Transit Assistance Listing Number: 20.509 Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.318(i), non-Federal entities must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement, including the rationale for the method of procurement and the basis for contractor selection. For sole source procurements, 2 CFR §200.320(c) outlines specific conditions under which noncompetitive procurement is allowable and requires written justification. Additionally, 2 CFR §200.303 requires non-Federal entities to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the entity is managing the award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Condition: During our review of procurement procedures, we noted that the entity selected a sole source vendor but did not maintain documentation supporting the justification for the noncompetitive procurement. While the procurement itself did not violate Uniform Guidance requirements, the absence of supporting documentation indicates a weakness in internal controls over procurement recordkeeping. Cause: Although the entity has established procedures for documenting sole source procurement decisions, those procedures were not followed in this instance. This appears to have been an isolated oversight rather than a systemic issue. Effect: Although the procurement may have met the criteria for a sole source, the lack of documentation limits transparency and may hinder the entity’s ability to demonstrate compliance in future audits. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend that management strengthen internal controls over procurement documentation by implementing procedures to ensure that all sole source procurements are supported by written justifications and retained in accordance with Uniform Guidance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
Department of the Treasury, Passed through the State of Michigan Federal Financial Assistance Listing 21.029, CPFFN0190, 2024 COVID-19 – Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund Procurement, Suspension, and Debarment Material Weakness in Internal Control Over Compliance Criteria – Uniform Guidance and 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326 set forth the procurement standards non-federal entities other than states must follow when operating federal programs and the procurement procedures required. Condition – In our testing of procurement, suspension, and debarment it was identified that the Cooperative’s written policy did not address the requirements of 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326. Cause – Lack of oversight, awareness, or understanding of all of the specific requirements under the Uniform Guidance and applicable CFR sections, and controls were not adequately designed to ensure compliance with all of these requirements. Effect – A lack of compliant policies increases the overall risk of non-compliance. Questioned Costs – None reported. Context/Sampling – Overall procurement policy. Repeat Finding from Prior Years – No. Recommendation – We recommend that management establish a written policy that is in compliance with all of the procurement requirements for federal programs as identified in 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326 and maintain adequate supporting documentation and records to document history and methods of procurement and the procedures performed to comply with these CFR sections. Views of Responsible Officials – There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
SCHEDULE OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS Public Utility District No. 1 of Franklin County January 1, 2024 through December 31, 2024 2024-001 The District did not have adequate internal controls for ensuring compliance with federal procurement requirements. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.029, COVID-19 Coronavirus Capital Projects Fund Federal Grantor Name: Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: N/A Pass-through Entity Name: Washington State Department of Commerce Pass-through Award/Contract Number: 23-96810-020 Known Questioned Cost Amount: $0 Prior Year Audit Finding: N/A Background During fiscal year 2024, the District spent $925,587 in federal Coronavirus Capital Projects program funds awarded from the Department of Treasury and passed through the Washington State Department of Commerce. During 2024, the District used program funding on one project to install fiber cable to provide broadband services. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and maintain internal controls that ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding program requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Federal regulations require recipients to follow their own documented procurement procedures, which must conform to the Uniform Guidance procurement standards found in 2 CFR 200.318-327. The procedures must reflect the most restrictive of federal, state or local procurement thresholds and methods when using federal funds. Description of Condition Our audit found the District’s internal controls were ineffective for ensuring compliance with federal procurement requirements. Specifically, the District did not include any of the federal procurement standards (2 CFR 200.318-327) in its purchasing policy. We consider this deficiency in internal controls to be a significant deficiency. Cause of Condition The District does not regularly manage federal funds and as a result, staff did not know about the requirement to have written standards of conduct and procurement policies or procedures. Effect of Condition Without written policies and procedures, the District is at an increased risk of not complying with following the most restrictive of federal, state, or local procurement requirements when using federal funds to procure contractors. Although the District does not have policies in place, it followed the procurement requirements in the Washington State Broadband Office’s Infrastructure Acceleration Grants Handbook and complied with federal procurement requirements for the contracts we tested. Recommendation We recommend the District update its policies and procedures that conform to federal procurement standards in Uniform Guidance (2 CFR 200.318-327). District’s Response The District followed the federal procurement requirements for the grant award as found and upheld in the audit. Staff also communicated these requirements to the District’s Board of Commissioners on multiple occasions and held weekly internal meetings to discuss grant requirements. Additionally, staff consulted with the granting agency to ensure the procedures undertaken complied with federal requirements. The District has a long-standing history of demonstrated legal compliance and implementation of audit recommendations. For this reason, the District maintains that a simple policy change does not support the issuance of a finding. The District will revise the language in its Purchasing Policy to reflect more specific federal requirements. Auditor’s Remarks We thank the District for its cooperation and assistance during the audit and acknowledge its commitment to resolve this finding. We will review the corrective action taken during our next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 318, General procurement standards, establishes requirements for written procedures.
FINDING 2024-003 Subject: Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Program: Water and Waste Disposal Systems for Rural Communities Assistance Listings Number: 10.760 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): FY2024 Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 TOWN OF PAOLI SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2023-002. Condition and Context As part of sound management of the federal award, the Town was responsible for implementing a system of internal controls that would ensure compliance with the applicable requirements. The Town had not properly designed or implemented such a system, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. The Town entered into contracts with three vendors in a prior year to provide goods and services for the duration of the Town's wastewater plant construction project. The total contract expenditures for all three vendors fell under the simplified acquisition threshold. The Town paid all three vendors with grant funds during the audit period, and all three were selected for testing accordingly. For two of the vendors, the Town properly procured the goods and services through the bidding process. For the third vendor, with disbursements totaling $106,269 in 2024, the Town was unable to provide any documentation that the procurement method used was appropriate or that the procurement provided full and open competition or rationale to support the determination to limit competition. Additionally, the history of the procurement, including rationale for the method of procurement, selection of the vendor, and the basis for the price, was not adequately documented. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to one vendor 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. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 TOWN OF PAOLI SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: ". . . (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance awards 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 19 TOWN OF PAOLI SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (2) Proposals. A procurement method in which either a fixed price or cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. They are awarded in accordance with the following requirements: (i) Requests for proposals must be publicized and identify all evaluation factors and their relative importance. Proposals must be solicited from an adequate number of qualified offerors. Any response to publicized requests for proposals must be considered to the maximum extent practical; (ii) The non-Federal entity must have a written method for conducting technical evaluations of the proposals received and making selections; (iii) Contracts must be awarded to the responsible offeror whose proposal is most advantageous to the non-Federal entity, with price and other factors considered; and (iv) The non-Federal entity may use competitive proposal procedures for qualifications based procurement of architectural/engineering (A/E) professional services whereby offeror's qualifications are evaluated and the most qualified offeror is selected, subject to negotiation of fair and reasonable compensation. The method, where price is not used as a selection factor, can only be used in procurement of A/E professional services. It cannot be used to purchase other types of services though A/E firms that are a potential source to perform the proposed effort. (c) Noncompetitive procurement. There are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply: (1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold (see paragraph (a)(1) of this section); (2) The item is available only from a single source; (3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; (4) The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non-Federal entity; or (5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate." Cause The vendor in question was an engineering firm that the Town has utilized for various projects over the course of many years. For continuity purposes, the Town chose to limit competition when awarding the contract but was unaware of the requirements necessary to do so. Since this was a multi-year award for which the Town entered into the contract in a prior year, the Town was unable to correct the noncompliance for the current audit period. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 TOWN OF PAOLI SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Effect Without a proper system of internal controls in place that operated effectively, noncompliance remained undetected. As a result, proper procurement procedures were not adhered to for all vendors. Without following the required methods for procurement, the Town could be overpaying for services. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funds to the Town. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the Town's management establish a proper system of internal controls to ensure expenditures made from federal awards use the appropriate procurement method and retain the documentation to support the procurement methods used in order to ensure compliance with the terms and conditions of the federal award. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Assistance Listing, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 15.916, U.S. Department of the Interior, Outdoor Recreation, Acquisition, Development and Planning Federal Award Identification Number and Year - FAIN not available, 2024 Pass through Entity - Colorado Parks and Wildlife/Land and Water Conservation Fund Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - Per 2 CFR 184.4(b), the Buy America Preference, which is to ensure none of the funds made available for a Federal award for an infrastructure project may be obligated unless all of the iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in the project are produced in the United States, must be included in all subawards, contracts, and purchase orders for the work performed under the Federal award. Per 2 CFR 200.318 (b), nonfederal entities "must maintain oversight to ensure that contractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders." Condition - The City did not have controls in place surrounding the review of contracts and bid documents and omitted the Build America Buy America clause. Questioned Costs - None If questioned costs are not determinable, description of why known questioned costs were undetermined or otherwise could not be reported - Not applicable Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - Not applicable Context - The City entered into one vendor contract during the year related to this federal award. The contract was for an infrastructure project, but the required Build America Buy America clauses were excluded from the contract. Cause and Effect - The City did not have a process in place to review the contract to ensure it was in compliance with Uniform Guidance; therefore, the CIty omitted the required clauses and was not in compliance with 2 CFR 200.318(b). Recommendation - We recommend the City review all contract and bid documents to ensure they are in compliance with all federal laws and regulations. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - The City accepts this finding. The City did have internal policies in place to ensure compliance with federal procurement requirements. However, the project was bid and awarded prior to receipt of any grant funding, so the Buy America Preference was not included in the contracts. While unintentional, the contract requirement was not followed. The City will require an amendment to the contract to include the Build America, Buy America clause. See the corrective action plan.
Criteria: 2 CFR sections 200.212 and 200.318(h); 48 CFR section 52.209-6 outlines that the non-Federal entity must verify that the agency in which it is entering into a contract is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. Condition: The Organization did not retain the documentation of verification of vendors not suppressed or debarred prior to entering into a contract with the vendor. Cause: The Organization does not have a procurement policy that contains the necessary provisions stated above. Effect: Despite having a written procurement policy, if the Organization does not maintain sufficient documentation of procurement evaluations and decisions, the Organization's procurement practices will not comply with the Uniform Guidance. Recommendation: The Organization should retain formal documentation with regard to its procurement decisions. View of Responsible Officials: The Organization agrees with the finding, see corrective action plan.
Criteria: 2 CFR sections 200.212 and 200.318(h); 48 CFR section 52.209-6 outlines that the non-Federal entity must verify that the agency in which it is entering into a contract is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. Condition: The Organization did not retain the documentation of verification of vendors not suppressed or debarred prior to entering into a contract with the vendor. Cause: The Organization does not have a procurement policy that contains the necessary provisions stated above. Effect: Despite having a written procurement policy, if the Organization does not maintain sufficient documentation of procurement evaluations and decisions, the Organization's procurement practices will not comply with the Uniform Guidance. Recommendation: The Organization should retain formal documentation with regard to its procurement decisions. View of Responsible Officials: The Organization agrees with the finding, see corrective action plan.
Criteria: 2 CFR sections 200.212 and 200.318(h); 48 CFR section 52.209-6 outlines that the non-Federal entity must verify that the agency in which it is entering into a contract is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. Condition: The Organization did not retain the documentation of verification of vendors not suppressed or debarred prior to entering into a contract with the vendor. Cause: The Organization does not have a procurement policy that contains the necessary provisions stated above. Effect: Despite having a written procurement policy, if the Organization does not maintain sufficient documentation of procurement evaluations and decisions, the Organization's procurement practices will not comply with the Uniform Guidance. Recommendation: The Organization should retain formal documentation with regard to its procurement decisions. View of Responsible Officials: The Organization agrees with the finding, see corrective action plan.
Criteria: 2 CFR sections 200.212 and 200.318(h); 48 CFR section 52.209-6 outlines that the non-Federal entity must verify that the agency in which it is entering into a contract is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. Condition: The Organization did not retain the documentation of verification of vendors not suppressed or debarred prior to entering into a contract with the vendor. Cause: The Organization does not have a procurement policy that contains the necessary provisions stated above. Effect: Despite having a written procurement policy, if the Organization does not maintain sufficient documentation of procurement evaluations and decisions, the Organization's procurement practices will not comply with the Uniform Guidance. Recommendation: The Organization should retain formal documentation with regard to its procurement decisions. View of Responsible Officials: The Organization agrees with the finding, see corrective action plan.
Criteria: 2 CFR sections 200.212 and 200.318(h); 48 CFR section 52.209-6 outlines that the non-Federal entity must verify that the agency in which it is entering into a contract is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. Condition: The Organization did not retain the documentation of verification of vendors not suppressed or debarred prior to entering into a contract with the vendor. Cause: The Organization does not have a procurement policy that contains the necessary provisions stated above. Effect: Despite having a written procurement policy, if the Organization does not maintain sufficient documentation of procurement evaluations and decisions, the Organization's procurement practices will not comply with the Uniform Guidance. Recommendation: The Organization should retain formal documentation with regard to its procurement decisions. View of Responsible Officials: The Organization agrees with the finding, see corrective action plan.
Criteria: 2 CFR sections 200.212 and 200.318(h); 48 CFR section 52.209-6 outlines that the non-Federal entity must verify that the agency in which it is entering into a contract is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. Condition: The Organization did not retain the documentation of verification of vendors not suppressed or debarred prior to entering into a contract with the vendor. Cause: The Organization does not have a procurement policy that contains the necessary provisions stated above. Effect: Despite having a written procurement policy, if the Organization does not maintain sufficient documentation of procurement evaluations and decisions, the Organization's procurement practices will not comply with the Uniform Guidance. Recommendation: The Organization should retain formal documentation with regard to its procurement decisions. View of Responsible Officials: The Organization agrees with the finding, see corrective action plan.
Criteria: 2 CFR sections 200.212 and 200.318(h); 48 CFR section 52.209-6 outlines that the non-Federal entity must verify that the agency in which it is entering into a contract is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. Condition: The Organization did not retain the documentation of verification of vendors not suppressed or debarred prior to entering into a contract with the vendor. Cause: The Organization does not have a procurement policy that contains the necessary provisions stated above. Effect: Despite having a written procurement policy, if the Organization does not maintain sufficient documentation of procurement evaluations and decisions, the Organization's procurement practices will not comply with the Uniform Guidance. Recommendation: The Organization should retain formal documentation with regard to its procurement decisions. View of Responsible Officials: The Organization agrees with the finding, see corrective action plan.
Significant Deficiency and Material Instance of Non-Compliance: Finding 2024-001: Written Procurement Policy This finding impacts the procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirement for the major program, Assistance Listing Number 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds funded by U.S. Department of the Treasury and passed through Massachusetts Technology Park Corporation. Criteria: According to 2 CFR 200.318–200.326, non-federal entities receiving Federal awards must establish and maintain written procurement policies and procedures. These policies must be consistent with Federal standards, including requirements for competitive bidding, documentation, and conflict-of-interest provisions. Condition: TGH did not have a written Federal procurement policy in place during 2024. Therefore, TGH did not adhere to Federal procurement requirements that ensure competitive, fair, and transparent procurement practices, nor did it implement the necessary documentation procedures to support procurement transactions. Cause: TGH’s internal control over procurement was inadequate and did not meet the specific requirements under 2 CFR 200.318. Effect: As a result of this noncompliance, there is an increased risk of improper procurement practices and the potential for misuse of Federal funds. While no improper procurements were identified during the audit, the lack of a procurement policy exposes TGH to risks of noncompliant procurement actions, such as non-competitive contracts, conflicts of interest, and insufficient documentation of procurement decisions. Was the finding a repeat of a findings in the immediate prior year?: No Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: We recommend that TGH develop and implement a written procurement policy in accordance with 2 CFR 200.318 to ensure compliance with Federal procurement requirements. The policy should include provisions for competitive bidding, applicable purchasing, procurement threshold, conflict-of-interest disclosure, and proper documentation of procurement actions. Additionally, TGH should provide training for procurement staff to ensure they understand and follow Federal procurement standards. Management Response: Management acknowledges the finding and concurs with the recommendation. TGH is in the process of developing and formalizing a comprehensive procurement policy that complies with the procurement standards outlined in 2 CFR 200.318–200.326 of the Uniform Guidance. The policy will address key areas such as allowable procurement methods, competition requirements, contract oversight, and verification against the Federal suspension and debarment list. Management anticipates that the procurement policy will be reviewed and approved by the appropriate oversight body by June 30, 2025, and staff will receive training on its implementation shortly thereafter. TGH is committed to strengthening internal controls over procurement to ensure continued compliance with Federal requirements.
Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Questioned Costs 14.218: $248,920 14.239: $1,172 Department of Housing and Urban Development 14.218 Community Development Block Grant 14.239 HOME Investment Partnership Program Grant No(s): B-21-MC-22-002,B-22-MC-22-002,B-23-MC-22-002,M-23-MC-22-0204 Criteria: Purchases made from federal grants must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326 (the Uniform Guidance or UG). Purchases of services in excess of $250,000 should be made using one of two formal methods that are competitive and require public notice. Condition: The City-Parish paid for program management services in 2020 in the amount of $250,632 under a contract that has not recently undergone formal procurement methods. The purchases were made through amendment of an existing contract initially awarded using formal methods in 2019. Universe/ Population: These programs were not selected for audit as major programs. The contract relating to the costs were selected for audit in our general procurement compliance testing for all contracts, including those paid with federal and non-federal sources. Effect: The City-Parish may be non-compliant with the purchasing requirements of the Uniform Guidance with respect to this contract. Cause: Improper execution of established internal controls and a lack of adherence to policies. Recommendation: The City-Parish should strengthen controls to ensure all purchases undergo the appropriate competitive procurement processes. Views of Responsible Officials: The amendment in question did not constitute a material change in the scope, nature, or intent of the original procurement. The additional funding awarded was consistent with the original services solicited and did not involve new activities or substantially alter the deliverables or performance standards initially procured. As such, the amendment fell within the bounds of the original competitive process and was not required to be procured. The City-Parish procurement policy allows for amendments when they do not exceed the original scope of work or introduce fundamentally different services. The amendment was processed with full documentation of cost reasonableness, continued eligibility under the applicable grant program and internal approval. Therefore, we assert that the contract amendment was executed in accordance with both HUD and local procurement requirements and no formal procurement was necessary. To strengthen internal controls and ensure full alignment with federal procurement requirements, the OCD will document and reinforce internal procedures outlining when procurement is or is not required for amendments within the original scope. Procurement training is ongoing. The OCD staff will conduct refresher training with procurement and program personnel on contract amendment procedures and documentation requirements. Final Auditor Comments: It is acknowledged that similar services required under the initial contract are also to be provided under the amendments to the contract (grants management services). The original contract had a term of May 1, 2019 to April 30, 2022, at an amount not-to exceed $70,000, to perform grants management services for established HUD programs such as CDBG and HOME. However, amendments to this contract, made without being competitively bid (RFP), added administration services for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program undertaken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These amendments brought the total not-to exceed amount to $9,054,261 for all grant management services. While the Emergency Rental Assistance Program may have qualified for emergency procurement treatment, thereby not requiring competitive procurement, the HOME and CDBG program administration services may have been required to be competitively procured after the initial contract period ending April 30, 2022.
Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Questioned Costs 14.218: $248,920 14.239: $1,172 Department of Housing and Urban Development 14.218 Community Development Block Grant 14.239 HOME Investment Partnership Program Grant No(s): B-21-MC-22-002,B-22-MC-22-002,B-23-MC-22-002,M-23-MC-22-0204 Criteria: Purchases made from federal grants must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326 (the Uniform Guidance or UG). Purchases of services in excess of $250,000 should be made using one of two formal methods that are competitive and require public notice. Condition: The City-Parish paid for program management services in 2020 in the amount of $250,632 under a contract that has not recently undergone formal procurement methods. The purchases were made through amendment of an existing contract initially awarded using formal methods in 2019. Universe/ Population: These programs were not selected for audit as major programs. The contract relating to the costs were selected for audit in our general procurement compliance testing for all contracts, including those paid with federal and non-federal sources. Effect: The City-Parish may be non-compliant with the purchasing requirements of the Uniform Guidance with respect to this contract. Cause: Improper execution of established internal controls and a lack of adherence to policies. Recommendation: The City-Parish should strengthen controls to ensure all purchases undergo the appropriate competitive procurement processes. Views of Responsible Officials: The amendment in question did not constitute a material change in the scope, nature, or intent of the original procurement. The additional funding awarded was consistent with the original services solicited and did not involve new activities or substantially alter the deliverables or performance standards initially procured. As such, the amendment fell within the bounds of the original competitive process and was not required to be procured. The City-Parish procurement policy allows for amendments when they do not exceed the original scope of work or introduce fundamentally different services. The amendment was processed with full documentation of cost reasonableness, continued eligibility under the applicable grant program and internal approval. Therefore, we assert that the contract amendment was executed in accordance with both HUD and local procurement requirements and no formal procurement was necessary. To strengthen internal controls and ensure full alignment with federal procurement requirements, the OCD will document and reinforce internal procedures outlining when procurement is or is not required for amendments within the original scope. Procurement training is ongoing. The OCD staff will conduct refresher training with procurement and program personnel on contract amendment procedures and documentation requirements. Final Auditor Comments: It is acknowledged that similar services required under the initial contract are also to be provided under the amendments to the contract (grants management services). The original contract had a term of May 1, 2019 to April 30, 2022, at an amount not-to exceed $70,000, to perform grants management services for established HUD programs such as CDBG and HOME. However, amendments to this contract, made without being competitively bid (RFP), added administration services for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program undertaken in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. These amendments brought the total not-to exceed amount to $9,054,261 for all grant management services. While the Emergency Rental Assistance Program may have qualified for emergency procurement treatment, thereby not requiring competitive procurement, the HOME and CDBG program administration services may have been required to be competitively procured after the initial contract period ending April 30, 2022.
Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Questioned Costs: $1,071,477 Department of the Treasury 21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Program (SLFR) (COVID-19) Grant No(s): N/A Criteria: Purchases made from federal grants must follow the procurement standards of Title 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326 (the Uniform Guidance or UG). The Louisiana State public bid law must also be followed, which requires purchases of equipment greater than $60,000 should be made using the sealed bid method. Condition: The City-Parish purchased police vehicles in the amount $1,071,477 without undergoing the bid process. Universe/ Population: Seventeen contracts totaling $13,644,485 were subjected to compliance testing. Two contracts totaling $1,071,477 were found to be noncompliant. Effect: The City-Parish may be non-compliant with the purchasing requirements of the Uniform Guidance and the Louisiana State public bid law with respect to this purchase. Cause: Improper execution of established internal controls and a lack of adherence to policies. Recommendation: The City-Parish should strengthen controls to ensure all purchases undergo the appropriate competitive procurement processes. View of Responsible Officials: The Purchasing Director for the City-Parish has the authority as provided by the Code of Ordinances to approve emergency purchases upon review of the certification of the emergency by the user department. At the beginning of 2024, the Baton Rouge Police Department noted its patrol units were in less than standard conditions and a recent Police Academy graduating class of sworn officers compounded the need for viable units. At the same time, a nationwide supply chain crisis limited the availability of vehicles for purchase. Multiple quote requests from vendors across Louisiana confirmed a lack of available inventory including the Louisiana State Contract vendor as well as a piggyback contract for the Jefferson Parish Sheriff’s Office. After an exhaustive search, a single vendor was located who had an inventory of matching vehicles on hand for offer within a limited time frame. In an effort to not compromise public safety, an emergency purchase was utilized which was signed by both the Police Chief and the Purchasing Director. As required, notice was given by publishing in the newspaper. Final Auditor Comments: While the views above cite local ordinances, state statutes still apply and give definition to situations that qualify as an emergency. The conditions under which the purchase was made may not qualify as an emergency, as defined by La R.S. 38:2211. Furthermore, La R.S. 38:2212 requires the emergency to be certified by the public entity. Louisiana Legislative Auditor’s published legal guidance indicates that this certification is to be taken through a public meeting. There was no certification of the emergency in a public meeting.