The procurement policy and conflict of interest policy of the Organization do not include the essential elements as outlined in 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326.
Information on the Federal Programs: United States Department of Education, both programs are passed through Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education CFDA Nos. 84.027 & 84.173; Special Education Cluster; Grant Period Ending Fiscal Year End 2024 CFDA Nos. 84.425 & 84.425D; ESSER Program; Grant Period Ending Fiscal Year End 2024 Condition: In the course of allowable costs and procurement testing (B-010), it was discovered that the client failed to check vendors for suspension/debarment prior to contracting; note I-002 email from client. Client does have appropriate policies/procedures in place for managing Federal awards, including this particular criteria; see Policies & Procedures, MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards, however they were not being followed. Criteria: Non-Federal entities are required to follow procurement standards per 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318-326, Uniform Guidance, as well as their own documented procurement standards, which must reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations – whichever is stricter. Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). UG §200.318 General procurement standards. When a non-Federal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the non-federal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR Section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. 2 CFR Part 180 identifies two types of covered transactions: a transaction at the primary tier versus a transaction at the lower tier. A covered transaction at the primary tier is any transaction between a Federal agency and a person. A person can be an individual or business, federal agency or non-federal agency. A covered transaction at the lower tier is where a participant, such as a non-federal entity, in a covered transaction does business with another person. A “covered transaction” can be further defined as a non-procurement transaction or procurement transaction. A subaward, regardless of amount, qualifies as a non-procurement transaction, unless exempt by 2 CFR Part 180.215. A procurement transaction for goods or services that equals or exceeds $25,000 qualifies as a covered transaction, unless other criteria is met within 2 CFR Part 180.220. For example, a procurement transaction could be a covered transaction, regardless of amount, if the transaction requires approval by a Federal agency. Cause: Excerpt from client Policies & Procedures, MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards: Debarment and Suspension (p. 28) The District awards contracts only to responsible contractors possessing the ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of a proposed procurement. Consideration will be given to such matters as contractor integrity, compliance with public policy, record of past performance, and financial and technical resources. The District may not subcontract with or award sub grants to any person or company who is debarred or suspended. For all contracts over $25,000 the District verifies that the vendor with whom the District intends to do business with is not excluded or disqualified. 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II (1) and 2 C.F.R. §§ 180.220 and 180.300. In this case, therefore, the proper control was in place but not followed. Effect or Possible Effect of the Condition: Non-compliance with 2 CFR 200 Section 180.995. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. Isolated Instance or Systemic Problem: This appears to be an isolated problem as the controls over this compliance requirement are in place but were not being followed. Repeat of a Finding in the Immediately Prior Audit (with Prior Year Audit Finding Number (where applicable)): No Recommendation to Prevent Future Occurrence: It is recommended that the Town follow scrupulously its own MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards: Debarment and Suspension, which is fully compliant with 2 CFR 200 Uniform Guidance.
Information on the Federal Programs: United States Department of Education, both programs are passed through Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education CFDA Nos. 84.027 & 84.173; Special Education Cluster; Grant Period Ending Fiscal Year End 2024 CFDA Nos. 84.425 & 84.425D; ESSER Program; Grant Period Ending Fiscal Year End 2024 Condition: In the course of allowable costs and procurement testing (B-010), it was discovered that the client failed to check vendors for suspension/debarment prior to contracting; note I-002 email from client. Client does have appropriate policies/procedures in place for managing Federal awards, including this particular criteria; see Policies & Procedures, MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards, however they were not being followed. Criteria: Non-Federal entities are required to follow procurement standards per 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318-326, Uniform Guidance, as well as their own documented procurement standards, which must reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations – whichever is stricter. Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). UG §200.318 General procurement standards. When a non-Federal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the non-federal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR Section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. 2 CFR Part 180 identifies two types of covered transactions: a transaction at the primary tier versus a transaction at the lower tier. A covered transaction at the primary tier is any transaction between a Federal agency and a person. A person can be an individual or business, federal agency or non-federal agency. A covered transaction at the lower tier is where a participant, such as a non-federal entity, in a covered transaction does business with another person. A “covered transaction” can be further defined as a non-procurement transaction or procurement transaction. A subaward, regardless of amount, qualifies as a non-procurement transaction, unless exempt by 2 CFR Part 180.215. A procurement transaction for goods or services that equals or exceeds $25,000 qualifies as a covered transaction, unless other criteria is met within 2 CFR Part 180.220. For example, a procurement transaction could be a covered transaction, regardless of amount, if the transaction requires approval by a Federal agency. Cause: Excerpt from client Policies & Procedures, MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards: Debarment and Suspension (p. 28) The District awards contracts only to responsible contractors possessing the ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of a proposed procurement. Consideration will be given to such matters as contractor integrity, compliance with public policy, record of past performance, and financial and technical resources. The District may not subcontract with or award sub grants to any person or company who is debarred or suspended. For all contracts over $25,000 the District verifies that the vendor with whom the District intends to do business with is not excluded or disqualified. 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II (1) and 2 C.F.R. §§ 180.220 and 180.300. In this case, therefore, the proper control was in place but not followed. Effect or Possible Effect of the Condition: Non-compliance with 2 CFR 200 Section 180.995. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. Isolated Instance or Systemic Problem: This appears to be an isolated problem as the controls over this compliance requirement are in place but were not being followed. Repeat of a Finding in the Immediately Prior Audit (with Prior Year Audit Finding Number (where applicable)): No Recommendation to Prevent Future Occurrence: It is recommended that the Town follow scrupulously its own MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards: Debarment and Suspension, which is fully compliant with 2 CFR 200 Uniform Guidance.
Information on the Federal Programs: United States Department of Education, both programs are passed through Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education CFDA Nos. 84.027 & 84.173; Special Education Cluster; Grant Period Ending Fiscal Year End 2024 CFDA Nos. 84.425 & 84.425D; ESSER Program; Grant Period Ending Fiscal Year End 2024 Condition: In the course of allowable costs and procurement testing (B-010), it was discovered that the client failed to check vendors for suspension/debarment prior to contracting; note I-002 email from client. Client does have appropriate policies/procedures in place for managing Federal awards, including this particular criteria; see Policies & Procedures, MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards, however they were not being followed. Criteria: Non-Federal entities are required to follow procurement standards per 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318-326, Uniform Guidance, as well as their own documented procurement standards, which must reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations – whichever is stricter. Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). UG §200.318 General procurement standards. When a non-Federal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the non-federal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR Section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. 2 CFR Part 180 identifies two types of covered transactions: a transaction at the primary tier versus a transaction at the lower tier. A covered transaction at the primary tier is any transaction between a Federal agency and a person. A person can be an individual or business, federal agency or non-federal agency. A covered transaction at the lower tier is where a participant, such as a non-federal entity, in a covered transaction does business with another person. A “covered transaction” can be further defined as a non-procurement transaction or procurement transaction. A subaward, regardless of amount, qualifies as a non-procurement transaction, unless exempt by 2 CFR Part 180.215. A procurement transaction for goods or services that equals or exceeds $25,000 qualifies as a covered transaction, unless other criteria is met within 2 CFR Part 180.220. For example, a procurement transaction could be a covered transaction, regardless of amount, if the transaction requires approval by a Federal agency. Cause: Excerpt from client Policies & Procedures, MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards: Debarment and Suspension (p. 28) The District awards contracts only to responsible contractors possessing the ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of a proposed procurement. Consideration will be given to such matters as contractor integrity, compliance with public policy, record of past performance, and financial and technical resources. The District may not subcontract with or award sub grants to any person or company who is debarred or suspended. For all contracts over $25,000 the District verifies that the vendor with whom the District intends to do business with is not excluded or disqualified. 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II (1) and 2 C.F.R. §§ 180.220 and 180.300. In this case, therefore, the proper control was in place but not followed. Effect or Possible Effect of the Condition: Non-compliance with 2 CFR 200 Section 180.995. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. Isolated Instance or Systemic Problem: This appears to be an isolated problem as the controls over this compliance requirement are in place but were not being followed. Repeat of a Finding in the Immediately Prior Audit (with Prior Year Audit Finding Number (where applicable)): No Recommendation to Prevent Future Occurrence: It is recommended that the Town follow scrupulously its own MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards: Debarment and Suspension, which is fully compliant with 2 CFR 200 Uniform Guidance.
Information on the Federal Programs: United States Department of Education, both programs are passed through Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education CFDA Nos. 84.027 & 84.173; Special Education Cluster; Grant Period Ending Fiscal Year End 2024 CFDA Nos. 84.425 & 84.425D; ESSER Program; Grant Period Ending Fiscal Year End 2024 Condition: In the course of allowable costs and procurement testing (B-010), it was discovered that the client failed to check vendors for suspension/debarment prior to contracting; note I-002 email from client. Client does have appropriate policies/procedures in place for managing Federal awards, including this particular criteria; see Policies & Procedures, MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards, however they were not being followed. Criteria: Non-Federal entities are required to follow procurement standards per 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318-326, Uniform Guidance, as well as their own documented procurement standards, which must reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations – whichever is stricter. Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). UG §200.318 General procurement standards. When a non-Federal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the non-federal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR Section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. 2 CFR Part 180 identifies two types of covered transactions: a transaction at the primary tier versus a transaction at the lower tier. A covered transaction at the primary tier is any transaction between a Federal agency and a person. A person can be an individual or business, federal agency or non-federal agency. A covered transaction at the lower tier is where a participant, such as a non-federal entity, in a covered transaction does business with another person. A “covered transaction” can be further defined as a non-procurement transaction or procurement transaction. A subaward, regardless of amount, qualifies as a non-procurement transaction, unless exempt by 2 CFR Part 180.215. A procurement transaction for goods or services that equals or exceeds $25,000 qualifies as a covered transaction, unless other criteria is met within 2 CFR Part 180.220. For example, a procurement transaction could be a covered transaction, regardless of amount, if the transaction requires approval by a Federal agency. Cause: Excerpt from client Policies & Procedures, MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards: Debarment and Suspension (p. 28) The District awards contracts only to responsible contractors possessing the ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of a proposed procurement. Consideration will be given to such matters as contractor integrity, compliance with public policy, record of past performance, and financial and technical resources. The District may not subcontract with or award sub grants to any person or company who is debarred or suspended. For all contracts over $25,000 the District verifies that the vendor with whom the District intends to do business with is not excluded or disqualified. 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II (1) and 2 C.F.R. §§ 180.220 and 180.300. In this case, therefore, the proper control was in place but not followed. Effect or Possible Effect of the Condition: Non-compliance with 2 CFR 200 Section 180.995. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. Isolated Instance or Systemic Problem: This appears to be an isolated problem as the controls over this compliance requirement are in place but were not being followed. Repeat of a Finding in the Immediately Prior Audit (with Prior Year Audit Finding Number (where applicable)): No Recommendation to Prevent Future Occurrence: It is recommended that the Town follow scrupulously its own MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards: Debarment and Suspension, which is fully compliant with 2 CFR 200 Uniform Guidance.
Information on the Federal Programs: United States Department of Education, both programs are passed through Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education CFDA Nos. 84.027 & 84.173; Special Education Cluster; Grant Period Ending Fiscal Year End 2024 CFDA Nos. 84.425 & 84.425D; ESSER Program; Grant Period Ending Fiscal Year End 2024 Condition: In the course of allowable costs and procurement testing (B-010), it was discovered that the client failed to check vendors for suspension/debarment prior to contracting; note I-002 email from client. Client does have appropriate policies/procedures in place for managing Federal awards, including this particular criteria; see Policies & Procedures, MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards, however they were not being followed. Criteria: Non-Federal entities are required to follow procurement standards per 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318-326, Uniform Guidance, as well as their own documented procurement standards, which must reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations – whichever is stricter. Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). UG §200.318 General procurement standards. When a non-Federal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the non-federal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR Section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. 2 CFR Part 180 identifies two types of covered transactions: a transaction at the primary tier versus a transaction at the lower tier. A covered transaction at the primary tier is any transaction between a Federal agency and a person. A person can be an individual or business, federal agency or non-federal agency. A covered transaction at the lower tier is where a participant, such as a non-federal entity, in a covered transaction does business with another person. A “covered transaction” can be further defined as a non-procurement transaction or procurement transaction. A subaward, regardless of amount, qualifies as a non-procurement transaction, unless exempt by 2 CFR Part 180.215. A procurement transaction for goods or services that equals or exceeds $25,000 qualifies as a covered transaction, unless other criteria is met within 2 CFR Part 180.220. For example, a procurement transaction could be a covered transaction, regardless of amount, if the transaction requires approval by a Federal agency. Cause: Excerpt from client Policies & Procedures, MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards: Debarment and Suspension (p. 28) The District awards contracts only to responsible contractors possessing the ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of a proposed procurement. Consideration will be given to such matters as contractor integrity, compliance with public policy, record of past performance, and financial and technical resources. The District may not subcontract with or award sub grants to any person or company who is debarred or suspended. For all contracts over $25,000 the District verifies that the vendor with whom the District intends to do business with is not excluded or disqualified. 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II (1) and 2 C.F.R. §§ 180.220 and 180.300. In this case, therefore, the proper control was in place but not followed. Effect or Possible Effect of the Condition: Non-compliance with 2 CFR 200 Section 180.995. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. Isolated Instance or Systemic Problem: This appears to be an isolated problem as the controls over this compliance requirement are in place but were not being followed. Repeat of a Finding in the Immediately Prior Audit (with Prior Year Audit Finding Number (where applicable)): No Recommendation to Prevent Future Occurrence: It is recommended that the Town follow scrupulously its own MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards: Debarment and Suspension, which is fully compliant with 2 CFR 200 Uniform Guidance.
Information on the Federal Programs: United States Department of Education, both programs are passed through Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education CFDA Nos. 84.027 & 84.173; Special Education Cluster; Grant Period Ending Fiscal Year End 2024 CFDA Nos. 84.425 & 84.425D; ESSER Program; Grant Period Ending Fiscal Year End 2024 Condition: In the course of allowable costs and procurement testing (B-010), it was discovered that the client failed to check vendors for suspension/debarment prior to contracting; note I-002 email from client. Client does have appropriate policies/procedures in place for managing Federal awards, including this particular criteria; see Policies & Procedures, MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards, however they were not being followed. Criteria: Non-Federal entities are required to follow procurement standards per 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318-326, Uniform Guidance, as well as their own documented procurement standards, which must reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations – whichever is stricter. Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). UG §200.318 General procurement standards. When a non-Federal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the non-federal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR Section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. 2 CFR Part 180 identifies two types of covered transactions: a transaction at the primary tier versus a transaction at the lower tier. A covered transaction at the primary tier is any transaction between a Federal agency and a person. A person can be an individual or business, federal agency or non-federal agency. A covered transaction at the lower tier is where a participant, such as a non-federal entity, in a covered transaction does business with another person. A “covered transaction” can be further defined as a non-procurement transaction or procurement transaction. A subaward, regardless of amount, qualifies as a non-procurement transaction, unless exempt by 2 CFR Part 180.215. A procurement transaction for goods or services that equals or exceeds $25,000 qualifies as a covered transaction, unless other criteria is met within 2 CFR Part 180.220. For example, a procurement transaction could be a covered transaction, regardless of amount, if the transaction requires approval by a Federal agency. Cause: Excerpt from client Policies & Procedures, MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards: Debarment and Suspension (p. 28) The District awards contracts only to responsible contractors possessing the ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of a proposed procurement. Consideration will be given to such matters as contractor integrity, compliance with public policy, record of past performance, and financial and technical resources. The District may not subcontract with or award sub grants to any person or company who is debarred or suspended. For all contracts over $25,000 the District verifies that the vendor with whom the District intends to do business with is not excluded or disqualified. 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II (1) and 2 C.F.R. §§ 180.220 and 180.300. In this case, therefore, the proper control was in place but not followed. Effect or Possible Effect of the Condition: Non-compliance with 2 CFR 200 Section 180.995. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. Isolated Instance or Systemic Problem: This appears to be an isolated problem as the controls over this compliance requirement are in place but were not being followed. Repeat of a Finding in the Immediately Prior Audit (with Prior Year Audit Finding Number (where applicable)): No Recommendation to Prevent Future Occurrence: It is recommended that the Town follow scrupulously its own MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards: Debarment and Suspension, which is fully compliant with 2 CFR 200 Uniform Guidance.
Information on the Federal Programs: United States Department of Education, both programs are passed through Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education CFDA Nos. 84.027 & 84.173; Special Education Cluster; Grant Period Ending Fiscal Year End 2024 CFDA Nos. 84.425 & 84.425D; ESSER Program; Grant Period Ending Fiscal Year End 2024 Condition: In the course of allowable costs and procurement testing (B-010), it was discovered that the client failed to check vendors for suspension/debarment prior to contracting; note I-002 email from client. Client does have appropriate policies/procedures in place for managing Federal awards, including this particular criteria; see Policies & Procedures, MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards, however they were not being followed. Criteria: Non-Federal entities are required to follow procurement standards per 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318-326, Uniform Guidance, as well as their own documented procurement standards, which must reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations – whichever is stricter. Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). UG §200.318 General procurement standards. When a non-Federal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the non-federal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR Section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. 2 CFR Part 180 identifies two types of covered transactions: a transaction at the primary tier versus a transaction at the lower tier. A covered transaction at the primary tier is any transaction between a Federal agency and a person. A person can be an individual or business, federal agency or non-federal agency. A covered transaction at the lower tier is where a participant, such as a non-federal entity, in a covered transaction does business with another person. A “covered transaction” can be further defined as a non-procurement transaction or procurement transaction. A subaward, regardless of amount, qualifies as a non-procurement transaction, unless exempt by 2 CFR Part 180.215. A procurement transaction for goods or services that equals or exceeds $25,000 qualifies as a covered transaction, unless other criteria is met within 2 CFR Part 180.220. For example, a procurement transaction could be a covered transaction, regardless of amount, if the transaction requires approval by a Federal agency. Cause: Excerpt from client Policies & Procedures, MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards: Debarment and Suspension (p. 28) The District awards contracts only to responsible contractors possessing the ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of a proposed procurement. Consideration will be given to such matters as contractor integrity, compliance with public policy, record of past performance, and financial and technical resources. The District may not subcontract with or award sub grants to any person or company who is debarred or suspended. For all contracts over $25,000 the District verifies that the vendor with whom the District intends to do business with is not excluded or disqualified. 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II (1) and 2 C.F.R. §§ 180.220 and 180.300. In this case, therefore, the proper control was in place but not followed. Effect or Possible Effect of the Condition: Non-compliance with 2 CFR 200 Section 180.995. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. Isolated Instance or Systemic Problem: This appears to be an isolated problem as the controls over this compliance requirement are in place but were not being followed. Repeat of a Finding in the Immediately Prior Audit (with Prior Year Audit Finding Number (where applicable)): No Recommendation to Prevent Future Occurrence: It is recommended that the Town follow scrupulously its own MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards: Debarment and Suspension, which is fully compliant with 2 CFR 200 Uniform Guidance.
Information on the Federal Programs: United States Department of Education, both programs are passed through Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education CFDA Nos. 84.027 & 84.173; Special Education Cluster; Grant Period Ending Fiscal Year End 2024 CFDA Nos. 84.425 & 84.425D; ESSER Program; Grant Period Ending Fiscal Year End 2024 Condition: In the course of allowable costs and procurement testing (B-010), it was discovered that the client failed to check vendors for suspension/debarment prior to contracting; note I-002 email from client. Client does have appropriate policies/procedures in place for managing Federal awards, including this particular criteria; see Policies & Procedures, MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards, however they were not being followed. Criteria: Non-Federal entities are required to follow procurement standards per 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318-326, Uniform Guidance, as well as their own documented procurement standards, which must reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations – whichever is stricter. Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). UG §200.318 General procurement standards. When a non-Federal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the non-federal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR Section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. 2 CFR Part 180 identifies two types of covered transactions: a transaction at the primary tier versus a transaction at the lower tier. A covered transaction at the primary tier is any transaction between a Federal agency and a person. A person can be an individual or business, federal agency or non-federal agency. A covered transaction at the lower tier is where a participant, such as a non-federal entity, in a covered transaction does business with another person. A “covered transaction” can be further defined as a non-procurement transaction or procurement transaction. A subaward, regardless of amount, qualifies as a non-procurement transaction, unless exempt by 2 CFR Part 180.215. A procurement transaction for goods or services that equals or exceeds $25,000 qualifies as a covered transaction, unless other criteria is met within 2 CFR Part 180.220. For example, a procurement transaction could be a covered transaction, regardless of amount, if the transaction requires approval by a Federal agency. Cause: Excerpt from client Policies & Procedures, MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards: Debarment and Suspension (p. 28) The District awards contracts only to responsible contractors possessing the ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of a proposed procurement. Consideration will be given to such matters as contractor integrity, compliance with public policy, record of past performance, and financial and technical resources. The District may not subcontract with or award sub grants to any person or company who is debarred or suspended. For all contracts over $25,000 the District verifies that the vendor with whom the District intends to do business with is not excluded or disqualified. 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II (1) and 2 C.F.R. §§ 180.220 and 180.300. In this case, therefore, the proper control was in place but not followed. Effect or Possible Effect of the Condition: Non-compliance with 2 CFR 200 Section 180.995. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. Isolated Instance or Systemic Problem: This appears to be an isolated problem as the controls over this compliance requirement are in place but were not being followed. Repeat of a Finding in the Immediately Prior Audit (with Prior Year Audit Finding Number (where applicable)): No Recommendation to Prevent Future Occurrence: It is recommended that the Town follow scrupulously its own MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards: Debarment and Suspension, which is fully compliant with 2 CFR 200 Uniform Guidance.
Information on the Federal Programs: United States Department of Education, both programs are passed through Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education CFDA Nos. 84.027 & 84.173; Special Education Cluster; Grant Period Ending Fiscal Year End 2024 CFDA Nos. 84.425 & 84.425D; ESSER Program; Grant Period Ending Fiscal Year End 2024 Condition: In the course of allowable costs and procurement testing (B-010), it was discovered that the client failed to check vendors for suspension/debarment prior to contracting; note I-002 email from client. Client does have appropriate policies/procedures in place for managing Federal awards, including this particular criteria; see Policies & Procedures, MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards, however they were not being followed. Criteria: Non-Federal entities are required to follow procurement standards per 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318-326, Uniform Guidance, as well as their own documented procurement standards, which must reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations – whichever is stricter. Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). UG §200.318 General procurement standards. When a non-Federal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the non-federal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR Section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. 2 CFR Part 180 identifies two types of covered transactions: a transaction at the primary tier versus a transaction at the lower tier. A covered transaction at the primary tier is any transaction between a Federal agency and a person. A person can be an individual or business, federal agency or non-federal agency. A covered transaction at the lower tier is where a participant, such as a non-federal entity, in a covered transaction does business with another person. A “covered transaction” can be further defined as a non-procurement transaction or procurement transaction. A subaward, regardless of amount, qualifies as a non-procurement transaction, unless exempt by 2 CFR Part 180.215. A procurement transaction for goods or services that equals or exceeds $25,000 qualifies as a covered transaction, unless other criteria is met within 2 CFR Part 180.220. For example, a procurement transaction could be a covered transaction, regardless of amount, if the transaction requires approval by a Federal agency. Cause: Excerpt from client Policies & Procedures, MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards: Debarment and Suspension (p. 28) The District awards contracts only to responsible contractors possessing the ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of a proposed procurement. Consideration will be given to such matters as contractor integrity, compliance with public policy, record of past performance, and financial and technical resources. The District may not subcontract with or award sub grants to any person or company who is debarred or suspended. For all contracts over $25,000 the District verifies that the vendor with whom the District intends to do business with is not excluded or disqualified. 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II (1) and 2 C.F.R. §§ 180.220 and 180.300. In this case, therefore, the proper control was in place but not followed. Effect or Possible Effect of the Condition: Non-compliance with 2 CFR 200 Section 180.995. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. Isolated Instance or Systemic Problem: This appears to be an isolated problem as the controls over this compliance requirement are in place but were not being followed. Repeat of a Finding in the Immediately Prior Audit (with Prior Year Audit Finding Number (where applicable)): No Recommendation to Prevent Future Occurrence: It is recommended that the Town follow scrupulously its own MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards: Debarment and Suspension, which is fully compliant with 2 CFR 200 Uniform Guidance.
Information on the Federal Programs: United States Department of Education, both programs are passed through Massachusetts Department of Elementary and Secondary Education CFDA Nos. 84.027 & 84.173; Special Education Cluster; Grant Period Ending Fiscal Year End 2024 CFDA Nos. 84.425 & 84.425D; ESSER Program; Grant Period Ending Fiscal Year End 2024 Condition: In the course of allowable costs and procurement testing (B-010), it was discovered that the client failed to check vendors for suspension/debarment prior to contracting; note I-002 email from client. Client does have appropriate policies/procedures in place for managing Federal awards, including this particular criteria; see Policies & Procedures, MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards, however they were not being followed. Criteria: Non-Federal entities are required to follow procurement standards per 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318-326, Uniform Guidance, as well as their own documented procurement standards, which must reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations – whichever is stricter. Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). UG §200.318 General procurement standards. When a non-Federal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the non-federal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR Section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. 2 CFR Part 180 identifies two types of covered transactions: a transaction at the primary tier versus a transaction at the lower tier. A covered transaction at the primary tier is any transaction between a Federal agency and a person. A person can be an individual or business, federal agency or non-federal agency. A covered transaction at the lower tier is where a participant, such as a non-federal entity, in a covered transaction does business with another person. A “covered transaction” can be further defined as a non-procurement transaction or procurement transaction. A subaward, regardless of amount, qualifies as a non-procurement transaction, unless exempt by 2 CFR Part 180.215. A procurement transaction for goods or services that equals or exceeds $25,000 qualifies as a covered transaction, unless other criteria is met within 2 CFR Part 180.220. For example, a procurement transaction could be a covered transaction, regardless of amount, if the transaction requires approval by a Federal agency. Cause: Excerpt from client Policies & Procedures, MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards: Debarment and Suspension (p. 28) The District awards contracts only to responsible contractors possessing the ability to perform successfully under the terms and conditions of a proposed procurement. Consideration will be given to such matters as contractor integrity, compliance with public policy, record of past performance, and financial and technical resources. The District may not subcontract with or award sub grants to any person or company who is debarred or suspended. For all contracts over $25,000 the District verifies that the vendor with whom the District intends to do business with is not excluded or disqualified. 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II (1) and 2 C.F.R. §§ 180.220 and 180.300. In this case, therefore, the proper control was in place but not followed. Effect or Possible Effect of the Condition: Non-compliance with 2 CFR 200 Section 180.995. Questioned Costs: Not applicable. Isolated Instance or Systemic Problem: This appears to be an isolated problem as the controls over this compliance requirement are in place but were not being followed. Repeat of a Finding in the Immediately Prior Audit (with Prior Year Audit Finding Number (where applicable)): No Recommendation to Prevent Future Occurrence: It is recommended that the Town follow scrupulously its own MPS Grant Manual – Policies Over Federal Awards: Debarment and Suspension, which is fully compliant with 2 CFR 200 Uniform Guidance.
2024-005 - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Program Information: Department of Treasury - State & Local Fiscal Recovery Fund ALN - 21.027 - State & Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Criteria: The following CFR(s) apply to this finding: 2 CFR §200.318(a) Condition: During our testing we reviewed the procurement policy for the City and identified multiple provisions required were not included in the policy. Cause: The control lapse occurred because there was turnover in key positions and the policy has not been reviewed. Effect: Procurement activities conducted under this incomplete policy may not adhere to required federal standards, increasing the risk of noncompliance, unallowable costs or procurement practices that do not ensure fair and open competition. Identification of Questioned Costs: None identified. Context: The procurement policy in effect during the fiscal year was reviewed which is not a statistically valid sample. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the City revise its procurement policy to fully incorporate all elements required by 2 CFR §200.317-200.327. Additionally, we suggest the City implement a regular policy review process to ensure continued compliance with federal regulations. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan: Please see the Corrective Action Plan issued by the City.
2024-005 - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Program Information: Department of Treasury - State & Local Fiscal Recovery Fund ALN - 21.027 - State & Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Criteria: The following CFR(s) apply to this finding: 2 CFR §200.318(a) Condition: During our testing we reviewed the procurement policy for the City and identified multiple provisions required were not included in the policy. Cause: The control lapse occurred because there was turnover in key positions and the policy has not been reviewed. Effect: Procurement activities conducted under this incomplete policy may not adhere to required federal standards, increasing the risk of noncompliance, unallowable costs or procurement practices that do not ensure fair and open competition. Identification of Questioned Costs: None identified. Context: The procurement policy in effect during the fiscal year was reviewed which is not a statistically valid sample. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the City revise its procurement policy to fully incorporate all elements required by 2 CFR §200.317-200.327. Additionally, we suggest the City implement a regular policy review process to ensure continued compliance with federal regulations. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan: Please see the Corrective Action Plan issued by the City.
2024-005 - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Program Information: Department of Treasury - State & Local Fiscal Recovery Fund ALN - 21.027 - State & Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Criteria: The following CFR(s) apply to this finding: 2 CFR §200.318(a) Condition: During our testing we reviewed the procurement policy for the City and identified multiple provisions required were not included in the policy. Cause: The control lapse occurred because there was turnover in key positions and the policy has not been reviewed. Effect: Procurement activities conducted under this incomplete policy may not adhere to required federal standards, increasing the risk of noncompliance, unallowable costs or procurement practices that do not ensure fair and open competition. Identification of Questioned Costs: None identified. Context: The procurement policy in effect during the fiscal year was reviewed which is not a statistically valid sample. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend the City revise its procurement policy to fully incorporate all elements required by 2 CFR §200.317-200.327. Additionally, we suggest the City implement a regular policy review process to ensure continued compliance with federal regulations. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan: Please see the Corrective Action Plan issued by the City.
FA 2024-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: 10.553 – School Breakfast Program 10.555 – National School Lunch Program Federal Award Numbers: 245GA324N1199 (Year: 2024), 235GA32N1099 (Year: 2023) Questioned Costs: $7,388 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Child Nutrition Cluster revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were reviewed and approved and that the School District’s procurement and suspension and debarment procedures were followed. Background Information: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) is comprised of various programs that are intended to assist states in administering and overseeing food service program operators that provide healthful, nutritious meals to eligible children in public and non-profit private schools, residential childcare institutions, and summer programs. This Cluster of programs also fosters healthy eating habits in children by providing fresh fruits and fresh vegetables to children attending elementary and secondary schools and encourages the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities. CNC funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to local educational agencies (LEAs) and overseeing the various CNC programs. CNC funds totaling $1,087,437.24 were expended and reported on the Wilkinson County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2024. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to 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 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented…” Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 – General Procurement Standards state in part that “(a) the non-Federal entity must use its own documented procurement procedures which reflect applicable State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and… (b) non-Federal entities must maintain oversight to ensure that contractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders.” In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.320 – Methods of Procurement to Be Followed provide guidance for procurement through small purchase procedures and state “If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources.” Condition: A sample of 39 expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. For eight of the 10 sample expenditures that were incurred outside of the School District’s Co-Op process, evidence of review and approval was not reflected within the voucher package. Additionally, auditor reviewed five of these same expenditures and a sample of 29 additional expenditures, which was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach, to determine if procurement transactions complied with the School District’s procurement procedures and proper oversight was maintained to ensure that contractors were performing according to their contracts. The following deficiencies were noted with expenditures incurred outside of the School District’s Co-Op process: • Evidence of review and approval was not reflected within the voucher package and/or purchase files for 17 additional expenditures. • The School District could not provide evidence that an adequate number of rate or price quotations were obtained from qualified sources for eight small purchase expenditures reviewed. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $14,237 in procurement transactions that were incurred outside of the School District’s Co-Op process, known questioned costs of $7,388 were identified for expenditures that did not follow the School District’s procurement procedures. Using the population of procurements that were incurred outside of the School District’s Co-Op process of $56,274, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $29,200. Cause: The School District did not follow its policies and procedures that govern the nonpersonal services expenditure process for federal programs. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance and GaDOE guidance related to CNC. Failure to ensure that expenditures are appropriately approved and procedures to address procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirements are implemented exposes the School District to unnecessary risk of error and misuse of federal funds and could result in the expenditure of federal funds for unallowable purposes and/or with unqualified vendors. In addition, this deficiency could lead to the return of funding associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to CNC. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that all expenditures reflect evidence of review and approval, required procurement methods are properly identified and followed and required procurement and suspension and debarment documentation is properly identified, safeguarded, and retained. In addition, management should develop a monitoring process to ensure that these procedures are operating appropriately. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2024-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: 10.553 – School Breakfast Program 10.555 – National School Lunch Program Federal Award Numbers: 245GA324N1199 (Year: 2024), 235GA32N1099 (Year: 2023) Questioned Costs: $7,388 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Child Nutrition Cluster revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that expenditures were reviewed and approved and that the School District’s procurement and suspension and debarment procedures were followed. Background Information: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) is comprised of various programs that are intended to assist states in administering and overseeing food service program operators that provide healthful, nutritious meals to eligible children in public and non-profit private schools, residential childcare institutions, and summer programs. This Cluster of programs also fosters healthy eating habits in children by providing fresh fruits and fresh vegetables to children attending elementary and secondary schools and encourages the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities. CNC funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to local educational agencies (LEAs) and overseeing the various CNC programs. CNC funds totaling $1,087,437.24 were expended and reported on the Wilkinson County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2024. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to 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 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented…” Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 – General Procurement Standards state in part that “(a) the non-Federal entity must use its own documented procurement procedures which reflect applicable State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and… (b) non-Federal entities must maintain oversight to ensure that contractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders.” In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.320 – Methods of Procurement to Be Followed provide guidance for procurement through small purchase procedures and state “If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources.” Condition: A sample of 39 expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. These expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. For eight of the 10 sample expenditures that were incurred outside of the School District’s Co-Op process, evidence of review and approval was not reflected within the voucher package. Additionally, auditor reviewed five of these same expenditures and a sample of 29 additional expenditures, which was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach, to determine if procurement transactions complied with the School District’s procurement procedures and proper oversight was maintained to ensure that contractors were performing according to their contracts. The following deficiencies were noted with expenditures incurred outside of the School District’s Co-Op process: • Evidence of review and approval was not reflected within the voucher package and/or purchase files for 17 additional expenditures. • The School District could not provide evidence that an adequate number of rate or price quotations were obtained from qualified sources for eight small purchase expenditures reviewed. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $14,237 in procurement transactions that were incurred outside of the School District’s Co-Op process, known questioned costs of $7,388 were identified for expenditures that did not follow the School District’s procurement procedures. Using the population of procurements that were incurred outside of the School District’s Co-Op process of $56,274, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $29,200. Cause: The School District did not follow its policies and procedures that govern the nonpersonal services expenditure process for federal programs. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance and GaDOE guidance related to CNC. Failure to ensure that expenditures are appropriately approved and procedures to address procurement and suspension and debarment compliance requirements are implemented exposes the School District to unnecessary risk of error and misuse of federal funds and could result in the expenditure of federal funds for unallowable purposes and/or with unqualified vendors. In addition, this deficiency could lead to the return of funding associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to CNC. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that all expenditures reflect evidence of review and approval, required procurement methods are properly identified and followed and required procurement and suspension and debarment documentation is properly identified, safeguarded, and retained. In addition, management should develop a monitoring process to ensure that these procedures are operating appropriately. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
Finding 2024-002: Procurement Federal Program Information: Department of Housing and Urban Development Continuum of Care Program, Direct funding – AL No. 14.267, Grant No. CA1320L9T142208. CA1320L9T142309, CA1255L9T142208, CA0841L9T141908, CA0773L9T142214, CA0773L9T142315, CA1317L9T132106 and CA1403L9T132106 Condition: Wipfli, LLP obtained the supporting documentation for purchases of client furnishings, cleaning services, and pest control services. The documentation indicated these vendors were selected based on best price. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. was able to provide explanations for why the vendor were selected, but procurement records supporting the explanations were not available for the pest control vendor. In addition, Wipfli noted Turning Point of Central California, Inc.’s procurement policy included references to outdated federal regulations and did not comply with all of the procurement requirements in the Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200). This is a repeat finding from the June 30, 2021, 2022 and 2023 audits. Criteria: The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 CFR Part 200, section 318(i) (Uniform Guidance) states that the non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. The records will include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contractor type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. In addition, the Uniform Guidance, 2 CFR Part 200, section 200.118 states that the non-Federal entity must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326 and must use their own documented procurement procedures that must conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. Cause: Turning Point of Central California, Inc. did not retain procurement records to support its assertion that it is contracting with vendors that provide the best prices. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. has not updated its procurement policy to comply with the Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200). Effect: Due to the conditions noted above, Turning Point of Central California, Inc. was not in compliance with the procurement regulations and there exists a material weakness in internal controls over the procurement compliance requirement. Recommendation: We recommend Turning Point of Central California, Inc. implement controls to ensure the procurement decisions are properly documented in accordance with updated internal policies and procedures that conform to the Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200). View of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding and has submitted a corrective action plan.
Finding Number: 2024-002 Repeat Finding: Similar to prior year finding 2023-003 Program Name/Assistance Listing Title: Indian School Equalization, Special Education Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 15.042, 84.027 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Education Federal Award Number: A23AV00811 Questioned Costs: None Type of Finding: Noncompliance, Material Weakness Compliance Requirement: Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Criteria: Under 2 CFR §215.43 the School is required to implement certain procurement policies that adhere to the minimum federal requirements as outlined in 2 CFR §215.44. Non-federal entities other than States, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of States, must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR §§200.318 through 200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable State and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the Procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR part 200. Condition: The School did not always follow procurement standards as put forth in 2 CFR §200.318 through §200.326. Effect: Noncompliance with federal regulation that led to a qualified audit opinion over the listed federal programs as noted above. Cause: Management oversight. Context: For two of 25 vendors within the Simplified Acquisition Threshold tested, the School did not maintain documentation that appropriate procurement procedures were performed or provide documentation to support the School’s reasoning for a noncompetitive procurement. Recommendation: The School should review its procurement procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures are performed documentation is maintained to support the procurement. Response: The School’s responses are presented in a separate document. Contact person: Dolores Silva, Chief Financial Officer
Finding Number: 2024-002 Repeat Finding: Similar to prior year finding 2023-003 Program Name/Assistance Listing Title: Indian School Equalization, Special Education Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 15.042, 84.027 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Education Federal Award Number: A23AV00811 Questioned Costs: None Type of Finding: Noncompliance, Material Weakness Compliance Requirement: Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Criteria: Under 2 CFR §215.43 the School is required to implement certain procurement policies that adhere to the minimum federal requirements as outlined in 2 CFR §215.44. Non-federal entities other than States, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of States, must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR §§200.318 through 200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable State and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the Procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR part 200. Condition: The School did not always follow procurement standards as put forth in 2 CFR §200.318 through §200.326. Effect: Noncompliance with federal regulation that led to a qualified audit opinion over the listed federal programs as noted above. Cause: Management oversight. Context: For two of 25 vendors within the Simplified Acquisition Threshold tested, the School did not maintain documentation that appropriate procurement procedures were performed or provide documentation to support the School’s reasoning for a noncompetitive procurement. Recommendation: The School should review its procurement procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures are performed documentation is maintained to support the procurement. Response: The School’s responses are presented in a separate document. Contact person: Dolores Silva, Chief Financial Officer
2024-005 Improve Internal Controls Over Procurement Federal Program(s) Information Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Award Name: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Award Year: 2024 Compliance Requirement: Procurement Type of Finding Compliance Internal Control over Compliance – Significant Deficiency Criteria or Specific Requirement 2 CFR 200.318–200.327 requires the City to follow documented procurement procedures consistent with applicable Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of their Federal award. The City must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement, including, but not limited to, the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. Condition and Context During our testing of six procurement transactions under the SLFRF program, the City was unable to provide documentation supporting procurement policies and procedures were followed for one transaction. Specifically, the City did not provide evidence of procurement history, competitive selection, or justification for the selected vendor related to this expenditure. Invoices were provided to support the expenditure. Cause The City’s internal controls did not ensure that procurement documentation was adequately maintained and available to support all federally funded transactions as required by Uniform Guidance. Effect or Potential Effect Lack of supporting procurement documentation increases the risk of noncompliance with Federal procurement requirements. No questioned costs are reported, as the expenditure was below the questioned cost threshold. Recommendation We recommend that the City strengthen its controls to ensure all required procurement documentation is maintained and readily available for all federally funded transactions. The City should provide training to procurement and program staff on Federal documentation requirements and regularly review procurement files for completeness. Views of Responsible Official Management’s corrective action plan is included at the end of this report after the Schedule of Prior Year Findings.
Finding 2024-002 – COVID 19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund - AL No. 21.027 U.S. Department of Treasury Noncompliance and Material Weakness Related to Internal Control over Compliance of the Major Program Criteria: Non‐federal entities other than states, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of states, must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. As governmental subrecipients of states they are also required to use the same state procurement policies and procedures for federal funds as for non‐federal funds, the Town is required to follow Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter (MGL) 30(b). MGL 30(b) requires the solicitation of three written or oral quotes for procurements of supplies between $10,000 and $49,999 and sealed bids or proposals for procurements of supplies $50,000 and over. Management of the Town is also responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with federal requirements that have a direct and material effect on a federal program. However, a deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. Condition and Context: During fiscal year 2024, the Town did not comply with the required procurement policies and procedures in place as it related to expenses charged to the major program requiring procurement procedures. One of the expenses tested was for engineering services that would have been exempt under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter (MGL) 30(b) (State Procurement Requirement), under federal statutes and procurement requirements for engineering services identified in 2 CFR Part 200, the Town would have been required to go out to bid for the services. Questioned Costs: $413,477.78 Cause: The noncompliance occurred because the organization mistakenly relied on Massachusetts Chapter 30B exemptions, which govern state and local procurements, and did not recognize the need to comply with the more stringent federal procurement requirements for federal fund usage. Staff members were not sufficiently aware of the specific requirements under 2 CFR Part 200 and the precedence of federal procurement regulations over state law in this context. Effect or Potential Effect: There is risk that the amounts charged to the federal awards major program may not be in accordance with procurement, suspension, and debarment principles. Identification as a Repeat Finding: 2023-003 Recommendation: The Town of Bellingham should address the nocompliance and material weakness in internal controls noted above in order to ensure that procurements are conducted in accordance with federal and state requirements. Management Response: We acknowledge the audit finding regarding our reliance on Massachusetts Chapter 30B exemptions for procurement involving federal funds. We understand that federal procurement regulations under 2 CFR Part 200 take precedence over state law and that we failed fully to comply with federal requirements for competitive bidding, sole-source justification, and documentation. We are committed to addressing this issue by reviewing our procurement policies to clearly differentiate between state and federal requirements, ensuring that federal standards govern all procurement involving federal funds. We will provide additional training to staff, implement stronger documentation procedures, and review past procurement to ensure full compliance moving forward.
Federal Agency: Department of Transportation Federal Program: 20.205 Highway Planning and Construction (HPC) Various awards State Agency: Missouri Department of Transportation (MoDOT) Type of Finding: Internal Control (Significant Deficiency) and Nonmaterial Noncompliance Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment The MoDOT did not establish policies and procedures to monitor contractor and subrecipient compliance with Build America, Buy America (BABA) domestic preference provisions for Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (IIJA)-funded projects of the HPC program. As a result, the MoDOT did not ensure contractors and subrecipients complied with these provisions. During the year ended June 30, 2024, the MoDOT expended approximately $922 million in IIJA funding for the HPC program, which represents approximately 68 percent of total program spending. The MoDOT is responsible for ensuring compliance with BABA domestic preference provisions for all IIJA-funded infrastructure projects. Section 70914(a) of the BABA Act, enacted as part of the IIJA, requires all iron, steel, manufactured products, and construction materials used in IIJA-funded infrastructure projects to be produced in the United States. Regulation 2 CFR Section 200.318(a) requires the MoDOT to maintain documented procurement procedures, and 2 CFR Section 200.318(b) requires the MoDOT to monitor contractor and subrecipient compliance with the terms and conditions of project agreements, including BABA provisions. The MoDOT includes BABA provisions in every contractor and subrecipient project agreement, including IIJA-funded projects. However, the MoDOT did not develop monitoring policies and procedures and did not verify contractors and subrecipients complied with these provisions. MoDOT officials stated specific monitoring procedures had not yet been developed because the requirements were relatively new and took effect in May 2022. In addition to noncompliance with federal requirements, without adequate monitoring policies and procedures, the MoDOT lacks assurance its contractors and subrecipients are in compliance with BABA requirements. Regulation 2 CFR Section 200.303(a) requires the non-federal entity to "[e]stablish 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." Recommendation The MoDOT implement and enforce policies and procedures to monitor HPC program IIJA-funded projects to ensure contractor and subrecipient compliance with BABA domestic preference provisions, as required. Auditee's Response We agree with the auditor's finding. Our Corrective Action Plan includes our planned actions to address the finding.
2024-003: Suspension and Debarment Verification Assistance Listing Number (ALN) and Title: 20.205 Highway Planning and Construction Federal Grantor: U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) Passed-through: Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT) Award Identification Numbers and Years: Finding is applicable to all 20.205 awards on the SEFA for 2024 Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Prior Year Audit Finding: No Criteria: 2 CFR 200.214 prohibits non-federal entities from contracting with or making subawards to parties listed on the governmentwide suspension and debarment list. 2 CFR 200.318(h) requires non-federal entities to verify that vendors are not suspended or debarred before entering into covered transactions (e.g., procurements expected to equal or exceed $25,000). This verification is typically done by checking the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) or collecting a certification from the entity. Prudent practice and effective internal control require documentation of these verification procedures and results. Condition: LCOG did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that it verified whether certain vendors paid with ALN 20.205 funds were excluded or disqualified under the suspension and debarment rules. While management stated they performed reviews of the SAM.gov listing prior to expenditure, no evidence (such as dated screenshots, search results printouts, or certifications) was available to support that the required verifications were performed for tested vendors. Questioned Costs: None. Context: During compliance testing for ALN 20.205, we selected a sample of two covered transactions. No other covered transactions were procured during FY 2024. LCOG could not provide documentation of its verification process for one the vendors in these transactions. Subsequent review of SAM.gov performed during the audit did not indicate the vendor had been suspended or debarred. Cause: LCOG has not implemented formal procedures requiring the retention of documentation demonstrating suspension and debarment checks for vendors paid with federal funds. Effect: Without documented verification, LCOG cannot demonstrate compliance with federal suspension and debarment requirements. While no ineligible vendors were identified in our sample, the lack of documented procedures and evidence represents a failure in the design or operation of internal controls, increasing the risk that LCOG could inadvertently contract with a suspended or debarred party using federal funds in the future. Recommendation: We recommend LCOG establish and implement formal, documented procedures for verifying that vendors are not suspended or debarred before entering into covered transactions paid with federal funds. These procedures should specify the method of verification (e.g., checking SAM.gov) and require retention of evidence (e.g., dated printouts or screenshots of the search results) within the procurement or vendor files. Auditee Views: The suspension and debarment check during the procurement process is one of the steps completed by the Procurement Officer for any covered transaction that is not the subject of a formal procurement. The Executive Director completed this check. For the one vendor referenced above, a sole source contract was to be awarded and the check for suspension and debarment of the vendor was completed by reviewing entity records in SAM.gov. The review of SAM.gov records did not disclose any suspensions or debarments of the vendor. In the future, we will take a screen shot of the result and place it in the procurement file. This will become part of the process immediately for any procurements that are not formal RFPs. Formal RFPs require vendors to certify that they are not suspended or debarred.
FA 2024-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Material Weakness Compliance Impact: Material Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: 10.553 – School Breakfast Program 10.555 – National School Lunch Program Federal Award Numbers: 235GA324N1099 (Year: 2024), 245GA324N1199 (Year: 2024) Questioned Costs: $46,877.67 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Child Nutrition Cluster revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that the School District’s procurement procedures were followed. Background Information: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) is comprised of various programs that are intended to assist states in administering and overseeing food service program operators that provide healthful, nutritious meals to eligible children in public and non-profit private schools, residential child care institutions, and summer programs. This Cluster of programs also fosters healthy eating habits in children by providing fresh fruits and fresh vegetables to children attending elementary and secondary schools and encourages the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities. CNC funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to local educational agencies (LEAs) and overseeing the various CNC programs. CNC funds totaling $1,204,722 were expended and reported on the Terrell County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2024. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to 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 200.303 – Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 – General Procurement Standards state in part that “(a) the non-Federal entity must use its own documented procurement procedures which reflect applicable State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and… (b) non-Federal entities must maintain oversight to ensure that contractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders.” In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.320 – Methods of Procurement to Be Followed provide guidance for procurement through small purchase procedures and state “If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources.” Condition: A sample of 47 procurement transactions was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. These transactions were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. The School District could not provide evidence that an adequate number of rate or price quotations were obtained from qualified sources for 18 small purchase expenditures reviewed. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $192,188.67 in procurement transactions, known questioned costs of $46,877.67 were identified for expenditures that did not follow the School District’s procurement procedures. Using the total population of $681,669.21 in procurement transactions, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $166,269.24. The following Assistance Listing Numbers were affected by known and likely questioned costs: 10.553 and 10.555. Cause: When discussing the issues noted with management, they indicated that School District personnel did not maintain sufficient documentation to support that multiple quotations were obtained. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance and GaDOE guidance. Failure to appropriately implement procedures to address procurement compliance requirements exposes the School District to unnecessary risk of error and misuse of federal funds and could result in the expenditure of federal funds with unqualified vendors. In addition, this deficiency could lead to the return of funding associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should evaluate and improve internal control procedures to ensure that required procurement methods are properly identified and followed. In addition, management should develop a monitoring process to ensure that these procedures are operating appropriately. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
2024-005 Inadequate Contract Retention and Suspension/Debarment Verification (Material Weakness) Federal Agency: Department of Education Pass-through Agency: New Hampshire Department of Education Cluster/Program: Special Education Cluster Assistance Listing Number(s): 84.027, 84.173, 84.027X, 84.173X Passed-through Identification: 20220039, 20221010, 20221035, 20221036, 20221037, 20230209, 20230211, 20230212, 20230214, 20230215, 20230231, 20230232, 2024188, 20240189, 20240190, 20240191, 20240191, 20240199, 20240308 Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Type of Finding: Internal Control over Compliance – Material Weakness Material Noncompliance Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations require that non-federal entities, including school administrative units (SAUs), maintain adequate documentation for all procurement transactions and ensure that vendors are eligible to participate in federal programs. Specifically, 2 CFR 200.318–200.327 outlines standards for procurement, including maintaining documentation that demonstrates compliance with federal requirements, ensuring fair and open competition, and retaining executed contracts and related procurement records. Additionally, 2 CFR 180 and 2 CFR 200.213 require verification that vendors are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from participation in federal programs prior to entering into a contract. Federal guidance emphasizes that all procurement documentation, including executed contracts, bid evaluations, and vendor eligibility verification, must be retained to provide an audit trail demonstrating compliance and prudent use of federal funds. Maintaining proper documentation and performing required verification steps helps prevent the risk of fraud, waste, or improper payments and ensures transparency and accountability in the use of public resources. Condition: During testing of procurement activities, we noted that two signed and executed contracts could not be located. Furthermore, for all vendors reviewed except one, there was no evidence that the School Administrative Unit (SAU) performed procedures to verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: The SAU did not have a consistent process for retaining executed contracts or for documenting the verification of vendor eligibility under suspension/debarment requirements. Staff were not aware of the federal verification requirements or lacked formal procedures to ensure compliance. Effect: The absence of executed contracts and verification procedures increases the risk of noncompliance with federal procurement regulations. This could potentially result in questioned costs during a federal audit and may expose the SAU to financial or reputational risk if funds were improperly paid to ineligible vendors. Questioned Costs: $679,147 Identification as Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The SAU should implement a formal procurement policy that ensures all contracts are properly executed, signed, and retained. The policy should also establish a standardized process to verify all vendors against federal suspension and debarment lists prior to awarding contracts, with documentation of all verification steps maintained as part of the procurement record. Additionally, staff should be trained on these procedures to ensure ongoing compliance with federal requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria: 2024 Compliance Supplement stated that the non-federal entity must meet the general procurement standards in 2 CFR section 200.318(a), which indicated that the recipient or subrecipient must maintain and use documented procedures for procurement transactions under a Federal award or subaward, including for acquisition of property or services. These documented procurement procedures must be consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. Condition/Context: As a result of our audit procedures, we noted that Eden's current purchasing (procurement) policy does not include the elements required by the Uniform Guidance. In particular, the policy should address the procurement methods outlined in the procurement claw (i.e. micro-purchases, small purchases, competitive bidding, etc.). Repeat Finding from Prior Year(s): No Cause and Effect: This issue arose from Eden’s limited understanding of the Uniform Guidance’s procurement requirements, which contributed to non-compliance with program requirements. Questioned Cost: None Recommendation: We recommend that management revisit its procurement policies to incorporate the necessary elements required by the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management agrees with the finding that the agency did not have policies for Procurement or Suspension and Debarment. The agency intends to adopt a procurement policy and procedures that meets the general procurement standards in 2 CFR section 200.318(a) and the State of California. The agency is also creating policies and procedures to ensure vendors are not suspended or debarred from work on federally funded projects.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2024-009 FEDERAL PROGRAMS (ALN – 84.027) SPECIAL EDUCATION – GRANTS TO STATES (IDEA, PART B) – SPECIAL EDUCATION CLUSTER (IDEA) (ALN – 84.173) SPECIAL EDUCATION – PRESCHOOL GRANTS (IDEA PRESCHOOL) – SPECIAL EDUCATION CLUSTER (IDEA) (ALN – 84.938A) HURRICANE EDUCATION RECOVERY – INMMEDIATE AID TO RESTART SCHOOL OPERATIONS (RESTART) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AWARD NUMBERS H027A220003 (07/01/2022 – 09/30/2023); H027A230003 (07/01/2023 – 09/30/2024); H173A220003 (07/01/2022 – 09/30/2023); H173A230003 (07/01/2023 – 09/30/2024); S938A180002 (04/26/2018 – 09/30/2025). COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT PROCUREMENT AND SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT TYPE OF FINDING MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE AND MATERIAL WEAKNESS CRITERIA 2 CFR Section 200.317, establishes that when conducting procurement transactions under a Federal award, a State or Indian Tribe must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements with non-Federal funds. 2 CFR §200.318(a)(i) establishes that the recipient or subrecipient must maintain and use documented procedures for procurement transactions under a Federal award or subaward, including for acquisition of property or services. These documented procurement procedures must be consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. The recipient or subrecipient must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of each procurement transaction. These records must include the rationale for the procurement method, contract type selection, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. STATEMENT OF CONDITION For the ALN 84.938A Restart program, we selected the same sample determined to audit the compliance requirement activities allowed or unallowed/allowable costs/cost principle of forty (40) disbursements from a population of six hundred eighty-three (683) disbursements to suppliers made during the fiscal year 2023-2024. For these forty (40) disbursements, we evaluated the procurement process, and we found the following deficiencies: For nineteen (19) of the cases, the PRDE did not provide either all the necessary documentation or, in some instances, only partial information, preventing a proper assessment of the procurement process for each authorized disbursement. In relation to the IDEA Cluster Program (ALNs 84.027 and 84.173), we requested a list of all procurement procedures performed related to professional services and direct services to participants. No information was provided related to procurement procedures. In addition, we selected a sample of twenty-five (25) transactions for which a quotation process should have been performed, no evidence of quotation process was provided. This represents a scope limitation. QUESTIONED COSTS None. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION After we requested all the supporting information related to procurement processes, the PRDE was not be able to provide the basic documentation for the procurement performed during the reasonable period of time. STATEMENT OF CAUSE In relation to the IDEA Cluster, the program performs a procurement process related to specific services for which no evidence of the procurement performed was provided. In addition, quotations for some purchases are performed through the Purchase Department of the PRDE. Evidence of the sample selection was not provided for evaluation For the ALN 84.938A, due to the lack of an adequate archiving process for the documentation of the procurement processes, the evidence could not be provided for our evaluation POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT Due to the lack of filing documentation related to the procurements performed program ALN 84.938A Restart, we were unable to properly ascertain if compliance with the procurement process was performed. In relation to the IDEA Cluster, we were unable to ascertain compliance with the procurement compliance requirements. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING This is a repeat finding (Finding Reference Number 2023-007). RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend that the PRDE review its internal control procedures for filings to ensure that all procurement documentation is readily available to any auditor or entity tasked with assessing the procurement process. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS Management agrees with the audit finding. The Puerto Rico Department of Education (PRDE) acknowledges that the requested procurement documentation was not fully available at the time of the auditors’ review. However, management made every effort to gather and reconstruct the information for all the selected transactions, and the complete documentation will be available. Furthermore, the PRDE is taking actions to improve the accessibility and organization of procurement files to ensure that all documentation is readily available for review in a timely manner. Internal controls over document retention and filing procedures are being reinforced to prevent recurrence of this situation. It is important to note that the procurement processes followed by the PRDE comply with the applicable requirements established under the Code of Federal Regulations (2 CFR Part 200 – Uniform Guidance). Management remains committed to strengthening its internal controls, ensuring full compliance with federal and state requirements, and maintaining complete and timely documentation to support all procurement activities. IMPLEMENTATION DATE Current Fiscal Year. RESPONSIBLE PERSON María de los A. Lizardi Valdés Office of Federal Affairs Director Edgar Delgado Serrano Office of Federal Affairs Associate Director
Federal Procurement Regulations Significant Deficiency U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES ALN #: 93.224 - Health Centers Program and 93.527 - Grants for New and Expanded Services under the Health Center Program Federal Award Identification #: 20H80CS00111, 24H80CS00111, 21H8FCS40976, 23H8GCS47647 Condition: During the Health Centers Program audit, it was noted that HAH did not follow their procurement policies as required by the Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.318. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.318 Questioned Costs: $0 Context: During the audit, it was noted that while the majority of program expenditures are salary and benefits, HAH did not follow their policies for procurement for other goods and services, and did not obtain multiple bids or sole source justification for any purchases that exceeded the micro-purchases threshold. Cause: Turnover at HAH, who separated from the parent entity in FY24 resulting in changes in procedures. Effect: Lack of internal control to ensure program requirements Identification as repeat finding, if applicable: Not applicable. Recommendation: We recommend that HAH establish an updated procurement policy and designate an individual to review all purchases over the micro-purchases threshold and review procurement documentation to ensure it is sufficient before expenses are approved for payment. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management agrees with the finding. See corrective action plan.
NONCOMPLIANCE WITH PROCUREMENT AND SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT REQUIREMENTS, CORONAVIRUS STATE AND LOCAL FISCAL RECOVERY FUNDS, ASSISTANCE LISTING No. 21.027, DIRECT ALLOCATION, GRANT No. AM-23-0295, YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2024 Criteria: Per 2 CFR 200.214, non-Federal entities are subject to the non-procurement, debarment and suspension regulations implementing Executive Orders 12549 and 12689, 2 CFR part 180. The regulations in 2 CFR part 180 restrict awards, subawards, and contracts with certain parties that are debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded from or ineligible for participation in Federal assistance programs or activities. Condition: The city did not comply with the procurement standards outlined in 2 CFR §200.318-§200.327, which require competitive procurement processes and verification that contractors are not suspended or debarred. Specifically, the city did not verify the eligibility of program recipients/participants/contractors through the System for Award Management (SAM) or equivalent documentation in order to verify that they were not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from participation in the program. Cause: The city does not have procurement policies and procedures in place that allow it to comply with procurement standards outlined in the Uniform Guidance. Effect: Non-compliance with program terms and conditions. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should develop procedures that will provide reasonable assurance that procurement of goods and services are made in compliance with applicable federal regulations and other procurement requirements specific to a federal award or subaward, and that no subaward, contract, or agreement for purchase of goods or services is made with any suspended or debarred party. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective action: The government agrees with this finding and will adhere to the attached corrective action plan.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program Name: Opioid STR Assistance Listing Number: 93.788 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 167552 - 2024 Pass-Through Agency: Oregon Health Authority Pass-Through Number(s): 167552 Award Period: January 4, 2021, through September 29, 2024 Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Controls over Compliance and Material Noncompliance: Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Criteria or specific requirement: 2 CFR Part 200 sections 200.214 and 200.318-327 outlines the required general procurement standards, competition, and methods of procurement to be followed. These elements must be incorporated into an organization’s procurement policies and must be followed to ensure procurements are supported and covered transactions are only entered into with entities that are not federally suspended or debarred. Condition: The Alliance does not have formal procurement or suspension and debarment policy. For the sampled procurement transactions, documentation was not retained supporting the determination that the vendors were single source providers, as required by Uniform Guidance. In addition, a suspension and debarment check was not performed before entering into the covered transaction. Questioned costs: Yes Known: $9,239 Likely: $39,740 Context: The Organization does not have written procurement policies nor suspension and debarment policies. CLA tested six procurement transactions charged to the major program. For the sampled procurement transactions, documentation was not retained detailing the history of the procurement, including: the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price. Documentation should be retained to evidence the adequate number of price comparisons, price analyses, and rationale of acquisition, including to limit competition where competition is limited or contractor is single source. In addition, five covered transactions were tested for suspension and debarment. Documentation was not retained showing selected entities were checked for suspension and debarment prior to entering into the covered transactions. Cause: Due to a lack of knowledge about federal procurement, suspension and debarment, and documentation requirements. Effect: There is an increased possibility of entering into a covered transaction with vendors/contractors who are federally suspended or debarred. Without adequate records retained, the Alliance is at risk of noncompliance with federal suspension and debarment requirements. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: CLA recommends the Alliance to develop the procurement policy compliance in with Uniform Guidance, including such documentation as the procurement threshold of the transaction, price comparisons and analyses made, bids obtained, proof of any limited competition, dated vendor screenings and signed authorization of the appropriate program personnel. CLA also recommends emphasizing the importance of the procurement standards and established policy to all authorized purchasers within the Alliance. The Alliance also needs to ensure that the policy includes suspension, and debarment checks, and it should be done prior to entering into the program. Each type of disbursement that leaves the Alliance (check, ACH, EFT, credit card, etc.) to improve documentary evidence that costs are being reviewed and approved for appropriateness. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Finding 2024-001: Significant Deficiency – Lack of Procurement Policy and Documentation on Sole Source Contracts and Verification of Vendors Federal Grantor: Department of Health and Human Services Condition: The Organization does not have a procurement policy in place that complies with Uniform Guidance. The Organization contracted with a vendor on a sole-source basis and did not document justification for the use of a sole source vendor. In addition, the Organization did not verify that the vendor was not on the list of vendors suspended or debarred from federal contracting before contracting with the vendor. Criteria: Entities are required to have written standards of conduct that cover conflicts of interest and govern the performance of its employees engaged in the selection, award, and administration of contracts (2 CFR section 200.318(c) and 48 CFR sections 52.203-13 and 52.303-16). Entities are required to follow the procurement standards in 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.327, including ensuring that the procurement method used for the contracts are appropriate based on the dollar amount and conditions specified in 2 CFR section 200.320 and noncompetitive procurements. Entities also must comply with 2 CFR Part 1326 that prohibits entities that have been debarred, suspended or voluntarily excluded from participating in Federal procurement. Cause: The Organization does not have a procurement policy that addresses sole source contracting and verifying vendor certification that they are not debarred, suspended, ineligible or voluntarily excluded from Federal procurements. Effect: The Department of Health and Human Services may impose additional conditions on the receipt of a subsequent tranche of future award funds, if any, or take other available remedies as set forth in 2 C.F.C. section 200.339. Recommendation: We recommend the Organization review policies with staff to ensure procurement requirements are followed, and that staff are familiar with federal procurement requirements. Management’s Response: The Organization will develop a procurement policy that complies with federal requirements and will document its justification for vendor selections.
The Ohio County Fiscal Court failed to publicly advertise for bids for all but two of the work site projects for the Emergency Watershed Protection Program project. While the county advertised a pre-bid meeting in the local newspaper for prospective companies to get an opportunity to learn about the project, the actual request for bids should have also been advertised in the local newspaper to ensure fair and cost effective procurement procedures. The total of the amount paid for services not properly advertised was $555,000. A total of $766,100 was spent for this program in the audit year. Per the emergency management staff, this was likely due to a misunderstanding and oversight of what was advertised. They had maintained documentation of the pre-bid meeting being advertised and thought that the actual bid request was advertised as well, but it appears it was not. By not following proper bidding procedures, the public was not made aware of the request for bids for this project and did not have an opportunity to apply to provide services for the project. Only those who attended the pre-bid meeting knew of the bidding procedures and the specifications for the projects. KRS 46.010(2) requires, “each county treasurer, and each county officer who receives or disburses state funds, to keep an accurate account of receipts and disbursements, showing a daily balance of receipts and disbursements.” KRS 46.010(3) requires, “all county officers handling state funds, other than taxes, to make an annual report to the Department for Local Government showing receipts and disbursements, and to make other financial statements as the Department for Local Government requires.” Strong internal controls require management to monitor disbursements to ensure compliance with procurement laws, and to keep good records of all bids and other procurement transactions. KRS 424.260 requires that all contractual services other than professional involving expenditures of greater than $40,000 to be advertised in the local newspaper for bids. In addition, 2 CFR section 200.318 (a) states “The recipient or subrecipient must maintain and use documented procedures for procurement transactions under a Federal award or subaward, including for acquisition of property or services. These documented procurement procedures must be consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327." Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding from the previous year.
Finding #SA2024-004 Compliance with Procurement Requirements Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Assistance Listing Title: COVID-19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Name of Federal Agency: Department of Treasury Pass Through Entity: California State Water Resources Control Board Federal Award Identification Number: A-00216-01 Criteria: Section I, Procurement and Suspension and Debarment, of the May 2024 OMB Compliance Supplement includes the following: In July 2022, Treasury released Final Rule FAQ 13.15, which explains that only a subset of the requirements in Subparts D and E of the Uniform Guidance apply to recipients’ use of award funds under the revenue loss eligible use category. The requirements of 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.327 are not included in the list of requirements applicable to such funds. The FAQ 13.15 referenced indicates “In general, these requirements provide that recipients should not deviate from their established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, and that they should expend and account for the funds in accordance with laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the recipient’s own funds.” Condition: We selected seven services and supplies transactions under the revenue loss category to test for allowability under the program and compliance with the City’s procurement policies and noted two vehicle purchases in the amounts of $60,762 and $54,383 were accompanied by sole source purchase documentation, in lieu of formal bidding, but the sole source forms were not signed as approved by the Department Director. Cause: We understand City staff could not locate the authorized forms for the two vehicle purchases. Effect: The City is not in compliance with the procurement requirements of the CSLFRF program. Recommendation: The City must develop procedures to ensure that the procurement files contain documentation to demonstrate compliance with the bidding/quote, contract and sole source requirements, as well as City Council approval requirements, to ensure compliance not only with its own policies, but with the procurement requirements of the CSLFRF grant. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Please see Corrective Action Plan separately prepared by the City.
2024-001 – Procurement, Debarment and Suspension Federal Program Information: US Department of the Treasury, passed through State of Maine Efficiency Maine 21.027 - Coronavirus State Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Criteria: The following CFR(s) apply to this finding: 2 CFR section 200.318 through 200.327. Condition: During audit procedures it was identified that the Town did not check sam.gov to confirm the contractor was not debarred or suspended from receiving federal funds nor did they request a Suspension and Debarment certification from the contractor. It was also identified that the contract was missing several required provisions, including but not limited to, Davis Bacon requirement, Clean Air Act, Federal Water Pollution Act, and the procurement file did not have the cost or price analysis documented. Cause: The Town did not follow their adopted procurement policy. Effect: There is a possibility that the contractor could have been debarred or suspended from working on federally funded projects. Funding may have been erroneously paid to a debarred or suspended contractor resulting in a material misstatement. Identification of Questioned Costs: $290,843 Context: The entire population of 12 months of reimbursements from the fiscal year were examined. Only two disbursements were made during the fiscal year, both were examined. Repeat Finding: This is a not a repeat finding. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Town implement internal control processes and procedures to ensure that federal procurement requirements are understood, including those requirements of recipients, subrecipients, contractors and how to determine who is a recipient, subrecipient and/or contractor. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan: Please see the Corrective Action Plan.
2024-001 – Procurement, Debarment and Suspension Federal Program Information: US Department of the Treasury, passed through State of Maine Efficiency Maine 21.027 - Coronavirus State Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Criteria: The following CFR(s) apply to this finding: 2 CFR section 200.318 through 200.327. Condition: During audit procedures it was identified that the Town did not check sam.gov to confirm the contractor was not debarred or suspended from receiving federal funds nor did they request a Suspension and Debarment certification from the contractor. It was also identified that the contract was missing several required provisions, including but not limited to, Davis Bacon requirement, Clean Air Act, Federal Water Pollution Act, and the procurement file did not have the cost or price analysis documented. Cause: The Town did not follow their adopted procurement policy. Effect: There is a possibility that the contractor could have been debarred or suspended from working on federally funded projects. Funding may have been erroneously paid to a debarred or suspended contractor resulting in a material misstatement. Identification of Questioned Costs: $290,843 Context: The entire population of 12 months of reimbursements from the fiscal year were examined. Only two disbursements were made during the fiscal year, both were examined. Repeat Finding: This is a not a repeat finding. Recommendation: It is recommended that the Town implement internal control processes and procedures to ensure that federal procurement requirements are understood, including those requirements of recipients, subrecipients, contractors and how to determine who is a recipient, subrecipient and/or contractor. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan: Please see the Corrective Action Plan.
FA 2024-001 Improve Controls over Procurement Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Material Weakness Compliance Impact: Material Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: 10.553 – School Breakfast Program 10.555 – National School Lunch Program COVID-19 - 10.555 – National School Lunch Program 10.582 – Fresh Fruit and Vegetable Program Federal Award Numbers: 245GA324N1199 (Year: 2024) 245GA324L1603 (Year: 2024) 245GA324L1603 (Year: 2024) Questioned Costs: $5,380.74 Description: A review of expenditures charged to the Child Nutrition Cluster revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating appropriately to ensure that the School District’s procurement procedures were followed. Background Information: The Child Nutrition Cluster (CNC) is comprised of various programs that are intended to assist states in administering and overseeing food service program operators that provide healthful, nutritious meals to eligible children in public and non-profit private schools, residential child care institutions, and summer programs. This Cluster of programs also fosters healthy eating habits in children by providing fresh fruits and fresh vegetables to children attending elementary and secondary schools and encourages the domestic consumption of nutritious agricultural commodities. CNC funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Agriculture. GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to local educational agencies (LEAs) and overseeing the various CNC programs. CNC funds totaling $450,874.38 were expended and reported on the Quitman County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2024. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to 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 200.303 – Internal Controls. Additionally, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 – General Procurement Standards state in part that “(a) the non-Federal entity must use its own documented procurement procedures, which reflects applicable State and local laws and regulations and… (b) non-Federal entities must maintain oversight to ensure that contractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders.” In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.320 – Methods of Procurement to Be Followed provide guidance for procurement through small purchase procedures and state “If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources…” Condition: A sample of 22 procurement transactions was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. These transactions were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. The School District could not provide evidence that an adequate number of rate or price quotations were obtained from qualified sources for ten small purchase expenditures. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $25,223.43 in procurement transactions, known questioned costs of $5,380.74 were identified for expenditures that did not follow the School District’s procurement procedures. Using the total population of $302,197.99 in procurement transactions, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $64,465.81. The following Assistance Listing Numbers were affected by known and likely questioned costs: 10.553, 10.555, and 10.582. Cause: In discussing these deficiencies with the School District, they indicated the errors occurred due to oversight in following board-approved policies related to procurement. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance and GaDOE guidance. Failure to appropriately implement procedures to address procurement compliance requirements exposes the School District to unnecessary risk of error and misuse of federal funds and could result in the expenditure of federal funds with unqualified vendors. In addition, this deficiency could lead to the return of grant funds associated with unallowable expenditures in the future. Recommendation: The School District should evaluate and improve internal control procedures to ensure that required procurement methods are properly identified and followed and appropriate procurement documentation is obtained and retained on-file. In addition, management should develop a monitoring process to ensure that these procedures are operating appropriately. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding
2 CFR § 400.1 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Agriculture for 2 CFR § 200.318 through 200.327 which describe specific procedures non-Federal entities must follow when making procurement transactions using Federal funds. 2 CFR § 200.318(a) indicates that a non-Federal entity must use its own documented procurement procedures which reflect applicable State and local laws and regulations, provided that such procurements conform to applicable Federal law and standards. 2 CFR § 200.320 indicates the non-Federal entity must use one of the following methods of procurement: (a) procurement by micro-purchases, which are acquisitions of supplies or services for which the aggregate dollar amount does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold; (b) procurement by small purchase procedures, which are relatively simple and informal procurements that do not exceed the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources; (c) procurement by sealed bids, which are purchases made through publicly solicited bids and result in a firm fixed-price contract (lump-sum or unit price) awarded to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder whose bid conforms to all material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids. This method is appropriate when a complete, adequate, and realistic specification or purchase description is available, two or more responsible bidders are willing and able to compete effectively for the business, and the procurement lends itself to a firm fixed-price contract with the selection of the successful bidder made principally on price; (d) procurement by competitive proposals, which is appropriate when purchases are large and competitive bidding is not appropriate; or (e) procurement by noncompetitive proposals, which are appropriate when the item is available only from a single source, the noncompetitive procurement is expressly authorized in the Federal award, competition is deemed inadequate after solicitation of multiple sources, or the item must be purchased without delay due to a public emergency or exigent circumstances. 2 CFR § 200.318(i) indicates the non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. Such records must include, but are not necessarily limited to, the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. Maple Heights City School District Board Policy EAG – Administration of Federal Grant Funds requires that all purchases of property and services using federal funds be conducted in accordance with applicable federal, state, and local laws and regulations, the Uniform Guidance, and the District’s written policies and procedures. The policy also requires the District to perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold. In addition, purchasing records must be maintained in sufficient detail to document the history of each procurement, including at a minimum: the rationale for the method of procurement, the selection of contract type, the contractor selected or rejected, the basis for the contract price, and verification that the contractor is not suspended or debarred. Although the District provided verbal justification for the four vendors selected during procurement testing for the Child Nutrition Cluster, it did not maintain written documentation sufficient to detail the history of the procurements, as required by federal regulations and District procurement policy. The procurements tested were below the simplified acquisition threshold; however, for three of the four procurements, required price or rate quotations from an adequate number of qualified sources were not documented. As a result, the District could not demonstrate compliance with federal procurement requirements. Failure to follow Uniform Guidance requirements and district federal procurement policies could lead to reduced future federal funding and questioned costs. The District should adopt and implement procedures to ensure that the history of each procurement is documented, including the rationale for the method of procurement, vendor selection, cost or price analysis, if applicable, and the justification for limiting competition, such as the use of a sole source provider or procurement due to emergency or exigent circumstances.
Finding: 2024-006 Procurement, Suspension, and Debarment (Significant Deficiency) Information on the Federal Programs: ALN #10.937 Partnerships for Climate-Smart Commodities Criteria or Specific Requirement (including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): 2 CFR 200.320(a)(1)(iv) allows for an increased micro-purchase threshold of up to $50,000 only if the non-Federal entity self-certifies that it meets specific conditions, including internal controls, organizational risk, and procurement oversight capacity. 2 CFR 200.214 prohibits contracting with or making subawards to parties that are suspended or debarred, and entities are required to verify that contractors are not listed on the System for Award Management (SAM.gov) at the time of contact/award. 2 CFR 200.318(c)(1) requires non-Federal entities to maintain written standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest and governing the performance of employees engaged in the selection, award, and administration of contracts. Condition: Our testing identified the following exceptions: 1. CIF did not maintain a comprehensive written procurement, suspension, and debarment policy during the fiscal year under audit. A draft policy was developed during the audit planning phase and is pending approval from the Board of Directors. 2. The draft policy self-certified a micro-purchase threshold of $50,000, which is not appropriate given that CIF does not meet all criteria required under 2 CFR 200.320(a)(1)(iv), and the elevated threshold is excessive relative to the size and scope of the Organization’s operations. 3. CIF provided SAM.gov suspension and debarment checks for contractors in our sample; however, the checks were undated, and we were unable to confirm that the verification was performed at the time of contract execution. 4. CIF did not maintain a conflict of interest policy during the fiscal year under audit, as required by 2 CFR 200.318(c)(1). While a draft conflict of interest policy was included in the draft procurement policy, it was not in effect during the year under audit. Cause: These conditions occurred because the Organization did not have formalized procurement policies and procedures in place throughout the year.Effect or Potential Effect: Failure to maintain compliant procurement and conflict of interest policies and procedures increases the risk that Federal funds may be spent in a manner inconsistent with Uniform Guidance requirements. Questioned Costs: $96,051 (all contractual expenses changed to ALN #10.937) Context: We tested a statistically valid sample of contractual relationships charged to Federal awards. The deficiencies noted were consistent across the sample population, indicating a systemic issue rather than isolated exceptions. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: N/A Recommendation: We recommend that management: 1. Finalize and implement a comprehensive procurement, suspension, and debarment policy that incorporates all requirements of 2 CFR 200.318–200.320. 2. Amend the draft policy to adopt a micro-purchase threshold appropriate for the Organization’s size and risk profile, consistent with 2 CFR 200.320(a)(1)(iv). 3. Ensure that SAM.gov checks are performed and documented with date-stamps at the time of contract execution. 4. Adopt and enforce a formal conflict of interest policy as required by 2 CFR 200.318(c)(1), and amend the policy to require annual (written) reaffirmations from all employees and Board members.
Condition: The County’s procurement policy is not in compliance with the requirements set forth in the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) at 2 CFR Part 200. Controls are ineffective to prevent failures in compliance with procurement requirements. Criteria: The Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR Part 200, specifically sections 200.318 to 200.326, establishes procurement standards and requirements for federal awards. The key principles include ensuring competition, maintaining written procurement policies, and avoiding conflicts of interest in procurement decisions. Effect: The lack of sufficient controls over procurement may result in noncompliance with federal requirements, potentially leading to disallowed costs, audit findings, and reduced funding. Recommendation: We recommend that the County revise its procurement policy (including internal control policies and procedures specific to the County) to align with the Uniform Guidance requirements. We also recommend the County provide its procurement policy in written form and regularly updated to each of its federal and state program managers to ensure proper compliance and consistent implementation. Response/Corrective Action Plan: We concur with the finding and will revise the procurement policy as well as the internal control policies and procedures specific to the County to be in alignment with the Uniform Guidance requirements. Upon completion, the new policy will be provided to all department heads to ensure proper compliance in the utilization and disbursement of federal funds.
CHILD NUTRITION CLUSTER – PROCUREMENT U.S. Department of Agriculture Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Passed Through Minnesota Department of Education Pass Through Number: 10.CNC Award Period: July 1, 2023 – June 30, 2024 Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control Over Compliance, Material Noncompliance (Modified Opinion) Criteria or specific requirement: Non-federal entities other than states must follow the procurement standards set out at CFR section 200.318 through 200.326. This includes utilizing one of the five allowable procurement methods, including small purchase guidelines for items over the micro-purchase threshold and sealed bids, competitive proposals, or noncompetitive proposals when items exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. In addition, the Uniform Guidance requires the entity maintain records sufficient to detail the history of the procurement. Condition: During our testing of the District’s procurements within the Child Nutrition program, it was noted that none of the selected procurements had sufficient documentation of the history of the transaction. Context: Forty procurement transactions were selected for testing. Federal regulations require that purchases follow documented procurement procedures, including evidence of open competition and retention of contract documentation for those procurement transactions over the District’s $3,500 micropurchase threshold. The District did not provide documentation of an open and competitive process for any of these purchases. Questioned costs: None Cause: Time pressure led to this requirement being missed. Effect: Lack of proper documentation could lead to using vendors for small purchase acquisition without ensuring comparable pricing from other vendors and justifying costs. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that the District ensure quotes are obtained for all procurements that are above the micro-purchase threshold, and that this process is documented along with their assessments of cost analysis performed. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the finding.
SPECIAL EDUCATION CLUSTER – PROCUREMENT U.S. Department of Education Special Education Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 84.027 & 84.173 Passed Through Minnesota Department of Education Pass Through Number: H027A220087 Award Period: July 1, 2023 – June 30, 2024 Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control Over Compliance, Material Noncompliance (Modified Opinion) Criteria or specific requirement: Non-federal entities other than states must follow the procurement standards set out at CFR section 200.318 through 200.326. This includes utilizing one of the five allowable procurement methods, including small purchase guidelines for items over the micro-purchase threshold and sealed bids, competitive proposals, or noncompetitive proposals when items exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. In addition, the Uniform Guidance requires the entity maintain records sufficient to detail the history of the procurement. Condition: During our testing of the District’s procurements within the Special Education program, it was noted not all procurements followed the appropriate method and history of the transaction was not sufficiently documented. Context: Five selections over the $3,500 micropurchase threshold were selected for testing. Federal regulations require that purchases above this threshold follow documented procurement procedures, including evidence of open competition and retention of contract documentation. The District did not provide documentation of an open and competitive process for four of these purchases and did not maintain the executed contract for one purchase. Questioned costs: None Cause: Time pressure led to this requirement being missed. Effect: Lack of proper documentation could lead to using vendors for small purchase acquisition without ensuring comparable pricing from other vendors and justifying costs. Repeat finding: Yes – 2023-006. Recommendation: We recommend that the District ensure quotes are obtained for all procurements that are above the micro-purchase threshold, and that this process is documented along with their assessments of cost analysis performed. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the finding.
FINDING 2024-010 Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Programs: Special Education Grants to States, COVID-19 - Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants, COVID-19 - Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listings Numbers: 84.027, 84.027X, 84.173, 84.173X Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 21611-045-PN01, 22611-045-PN01, 22611-045-ARP, 21619-045-PN01, 22619-045-PN01, 22619-045-ARP Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance related to the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. Procurement - Small Purchases Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is set at $250,000 unless a lower, more restrictive threshold is set by a nonfederal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, the informal procurement method is permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds: micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchase threshold but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. The population for those procurements that fell within the small purchase range consisted of three vendors with a total purchased amount from those vendors of $75,284. The School Corporation did not provide adequate documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used, for all three vendors. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAM exclusions, collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. One vendor provided contracted services paid with Special Education Grant funds during the audit period totaling $44,827. Upon inquiry of the School Corporation, it was determined that the School Corporation did not verify that the contractor was not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 36 NORTH LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The lack of effective internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. . . ." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use document procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in § 200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: . . . (2) Small purchases— (i) Small purchase procedures. The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 37 NORTH LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Indiana Code 5-22-8-3 states in part: "(a) . . . if the purchasing agent expects the purchase to be: (1) at least fifty thousand dollars ($50,000); and (2) not more than one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000). . . . (d) . . . the purchasing agent shall award a contract to the lowest responsible and responsive offeror for each line or class of supplies required. . . ." 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation, which would include segregation of key functions. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to affect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, procurement procedures for goods and services were not adhered to, and vendors to whom payments equal to or in excess of $25,000 were not verified to be not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirement could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure there are appropriate procurement procedures for goods and services and contractors and subrecipients, as appropriate, are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into any contracts or subawards. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 38 NORTH LAWRENCE COMMUNITY SCHOOLS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION-FINDING 2024-002 – PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES-AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN (ARP) ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL EMERGENCY RELIEF FUND (ESSER III) - ALN 84.425U-CONDITION: During my review of the District’s compliance with the requirements for noncompetitive procurement, I noted the District did not document its rationale for purchases made from ‘Associates in Counseling’. This is a repeat finding 2023-002 from the prior fiscal year-CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records include but are not limited to the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used.-EFFECT: The District did not comply with Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance, and District Procurement Policy #626, regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement.-QUESTIONED COST: $163,315-CAUSE: The District utilized this vendor as they felt these professional services best fit the needs of the District. However, the additional procedures addressed in its Procurement Policy for Federal Programs (#626) which addresses the issue of noncompetitive procurement as outlined in Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’), were inadvertently not performed.-RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases involving noncompetitive procurement, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs (#626), and 2) Section 2 CFR 200.320(c) of the Uniform Guidance.-VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: Management of the School District has reviewed the above noted finding and recommendation and have developed a corresponding ‘Corrective Action Plan’ to address this matter (See Corrective Action Plan).
Significant Deficiencies 2024-004 - Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Federal Program Information: Department of Transportation – ALN: - 20.500, 20.507, 20.525 & 20.526 – Federal Transit Cluster Criteria: The following CFR(s) apply to this finding: 2 CFR 200.318 to 327. Condition: During audit procedures, it was identified that the Committee did not follow policies and procedures as adopted. Cause: The Committee does not have the necessary internal controls over compliance. Effect: Insufficient controls could result in unallowable expenses being charged to the program and subsequently improperly reimbursed by federal funds. Identification of Questioned Costs: None identified. Context: While reviewing the procurement policies and procedures, the auditor requested the micro and small purchases form, as found in the procurement policies and procedures documents, but none could be provided for the samples originally requested. Repeat Finding: This is a repeat finding of 2023-004. Recommendation: The auditor recommends that the Committee update its procurement policy and implement internal control processes and procedures to ensure that they are following the criteria above. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan: See attached Corrective Action Plan.
Finding 2024-005 – Inadequate Procurement Documentation (Material Weakness) Name of Federal Agency: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Federal Program Name: Nonpoint Source Implementation Grants Assistance Listing Numbers: 66.460 Pass-Through Entity: Oregon Department of Environmental Quality Name of Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Commerce – National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Federal Program Name: Pacific Coast Salmon Recovery Program Assistance Listing Numbers: 11.438, 15.015, 15.244 Pass-Through Entity: State of Oregon – Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB) Name of Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal Program Name: National Fish and Wildlife Foundation Assistance Listing Numbers: 10.665 Pass-Through Entity: U.S. Forest Service Name of Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal Program Name: Natural Resources Conservation Service Assistance Listing Numbers: 10.905 Pass-Through Entity: U.S. Forest Service Name of Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior Federal Program Name: Wildlife, Sport Fish and Restoration Program Assistance Listing Numbers: 15.244 Pass-Through Entity: Bureau of Land Management Name of Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the InteriorFederal Program Name: Secure Rural Schools and community Self-Determination – Watershed and water-quality improvements Assistance Listing Numbers: 15.234 Pass-Through Entity: Bureau of Land Management Criteria: Federal procurement standards require non-Federal entities to maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement, including the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and basis for the contract price. Competitive procurement must follow the entity’s written procedures consistent with 2 CFR §§200.317-200.327, including: Written procedures for procurement (§200.318(a)). Full and open competition requirements (§200.319). Methods of procurement (sealed bids, proposal requirements, and required documentation (§200.320). Contract cost and price justification, (§200.324). Suspension/debarment verification for covered transactions (§200.214; §200.213). Condition: During the audit period, the Entity did not retain sufficient procurement documentation for several contracts funded under the above Assistance Listings. Specifically, files lacked one or more of the following: Evidence of the procurement method used. Price or cost analysis. Suspension/debarment checks for vendors where required. Documentation of competition. Conflict-of-interest attestations. Cause: Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers procurement procedures were not sufficiently detailed or consistently applied to federal purchases. No evidence of procedures or review for procurement or suspension / debarment was provided to auditors. Turnover and limited training on Uniform Guidance procurement standards contributed to the inconsistent file completeness. Effect or Potential Effect: Without complete procurement documentation, the Entity cannot demonstrate compliance with federal procurement requirements, increasing the risk of: Noncompetitive awards or unreasonable prices. Unallowable costs for the award requirements. Potential disallowance or repayment of federal funds. Findings in federal or pass-through monitoring and future audits. Questioned Cost: Yes, $902,496 related to expenditures that had no procurement support or detail. Context: During our audit, it was found that the Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers had experienced complete staff turnover in Financial Management for the year being audited. No current finance employees had worked for the organization during the year being audited. Award files provided to auditors did not contain information related to procurement, suspension or debarment procedures or processes. Repeat of a Prior-Year Finding: No, Prior- year did not require a Single Audit. Recommendation: We recommend that Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers: Update Written Procurement Procedures o Incorporate Uniform Guidance thresholds and methods (§200.320), competition requirements (§200.319), and documentation expectations (history of procurement). o Embed steps for suspension / debarment checks and Appendix II Contract clauses. Standardized Procurement Checklist o Pre-award checklist that verifies: method, competition evidence, cost/price analysis, conflict of interest attestations, SAM exclusion check, and required federal clauses. o Post -award checklist ensuring complete contract file (award memo, bid tab / evaluation, signed agreement, clause verification). Cost/Price Analysis Guidance o Require documented price reasonableness for small purchases, formal cost or price analysis for larger or sole-source awards, per (§200.324). Training & Accountability o Provide targeted training to procurement and program staff on 2 CFR §§200.317- 20.327 and Assistance Listing award conditions. o Implement supervisory pre-award review and periodic file audits. District Response: Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers acknowledges the deficiencies. Corrective Action Plan: ____________ (To be completed by Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers) Planned Implementation Date: _____________ Responsible Person: Partnership for the Umpqua Rivers Finance Manager
Finding 2024-008: Procurement – Significant Deficiency Information on the federal program: Federal program is American Rescue Plan Act - Violence Prevention and Reduction Grant Portfolio from the U.S. Department of Treasury passed through the Justice Advisory Council. Criteria: Non-federal entities other than states must follow the procurement standards set out in 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.327. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statues and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. Condition: The Organization does not maintain a formal procurement policy and procedures that meets the requirements of the Uniform Guidance, including procedures addressing allowable costs exceeding the small purchase threshold. The lack of such a formal policy increases the risk that purchases are made that do not comply with Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Organization has not implemented a formal procurement policy and procedures that meets the requirements for the Uniform Guidance. Effect: The lack of such a formal policy increases the risk that purchases are made that do not comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. Questioned Costs: None. Context: As part of our testing over procurement standards under the Uniform Guidance, we requested documentation supporting the Organization’s procurement policies and procedures, including thresholds, required competition, documentation requirements, and approval processes. The Organization was unable to provide a formalized or adopted procurement policy. Additionally, procurement documentation reviewed during the audit indicated that purchases were made without evidence of compliance with federal procurement standards, confirming that the deficiency was systemic and not limited to a single transaction or department. Identification as a Repeat Finding: 2023-009 Recommendation: We recommend that management implement a formal procurement policy and procedures that meets the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: While Saint Anthony Hospital has a procurement policy in place, we need to order computers within a certain time frame in order to secure funds from the grant and utilize our main supplier. Thus, we did not get more than 1 quote for the computers. The procurement policy as well as all policies are reviewed every three years to comply with Joint Commission Standards. Saint Anthony will review its existing procurement policy to ensure that all elements required by the Uniform Guidance are incorporated. The review was completed on March 28, 2025.
2024-003 Documented Procurement Policy Federal Program - U.S. Department of the Treasury – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (ALN 21.027) Federal Award Number - SLFRP0136 Compliance Requirement - Procurement, Suspension, and Debarment Repeat Finding - This is a repeat finding of 2023-003. Corrective action was not completed prior to or during the audit period due to the timing of audit completion and recommendations to management. Criteria - Per 2 C.F.R. § 200.318(a), non-federal entities must use documented procurement procedures that reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations and conform to applicable federal laws and the procurement standards identified in the Uniform Guidance, including those set forth in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. Condition - During our audit, we noted that the Organization did not have a documented procurement policy in place that complies with the Uniform Guidance. Cause - The Organization has historically had a low volume of procurement activity and has not formalized written procurement procedures. Effect - Without a documented procurement policy, there is an increased risk that future procurements may not comply with applicable federal requirements, which could result in unallowable costs or other compliance issues. Questioned Costs - None noted. Context - This condition was identified during our testing of internal controls over compliance for the Procurement, Suspension, and Debarment requirement. Although the Organization did not enter into any contracts or purchases during the audit period that exceeded the micro-purchase threshold, the absence of a required policy represents a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Recommendation - We recommend that the Organization develop and implement a written procurement policy that complies with 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.318–.327 and ensure that staff are trained on its provisions. View of Responsible Officials - We agree with the finding. The organization lacked a formal procurement policy that was effective for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2024. A procurement policy which included all required elements was drafted and implemented with an effective date of July 1, 2025.
2024-013 (2023-008) PROCUREMENT, ABOVE SIMPLE ACQUISITION THRESHOLD Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Energy Federal Program Title and Assistance Listing Number: Environmental Remediation and Waste Processing and Disposal, 81.104 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance Compliance Area: Procurement and suspension and debarment Federal Award Year: 2024 Questioned Costs: None Condition During our review of procurement testing, the College acquired a training simulator through a sole source procurement. The College displayed on their website the “vendor’s determination”, not the “College’s determination”. In 2024, the College prepaid $1,577,250 on this procurement. Criteria Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), the non-federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Per 2 CFR 200.318(i), non-federal entities must retain documentation sufficient to detail the history of procurement decisions. Cause The College did not provide their own independent sole source determination. Effect The College may unintentionally charge expenses to the program that do not qualify and in turn lead to questioned costs and/or repayment of funds to the grantor agency.
Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Material Weakness Compliance Impact: Material Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Number and Title: 84.371C – Comprehensive Literacy Development Federal Award Number: S371C190016-19A (Years: 2017-21) Questioned Costs: $12,921.61 Repeat of Prior Year Findings: FA 2022-002, FA 2023-001 Description: A review of expenditures and journal entries charged to the Comprehensive Literacy Development program revealed that the School District’s internal control procedures were not operating to ensure that appropriate reviews and approvals occurred and the School District’s procurement procedures were followed. Background Information: The Comprehensive Literacy Development Program (CLD) was authorized under Sections 2222-2225 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 to create a comprehensive literacy program to advance literacy skills, including pre-literacy skills, reading, and writing, for children from birth to grade 12, with an emphasis on disadvantaged children, including children living in poverty, English learners, and children with disabilities. CLD funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to local educational agencies (LEAs) and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. CLD funds totaling $454,278.20 were expended and reported on the Burke County Board of Education’s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2024. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to 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 200.303 – Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 – Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented, (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period…” Lastly, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 – General Procurement Standards state in part that “(a) the non-Federal entity must use its own documented procurement procedures which reflect applicable State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and… (b) non-Federal entities must maintain oversight to ensure that contractors perform in accordance with the terms, conditions, and specifications of their contracts or purchase orders.” In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.320 – Methods of Procurement to Be Followed provide guidance for procurement through small purchase procedures and state “If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources.” Condition: Auditors performed a review of various expenditure activity associated with the CLD program to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. The following deficiencies were identified: • A sample of 60 expenditures was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Evidence of review and approval was not reflected for 17 expenditures, and adequate evidence of receipt was not maintained for 20 expenditures. • A sample of two journal entries was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Evidence of review to ensure that the activity was allowable and occurred during the period of performance was not reflected for either journal entry tested. • A sample of 45 procurement transactions was randomly selected for testing using a non-statistical sampling approach. Four procurement transactions did not reflect evidence of supervisory review and approval, and the School District could not provide evidence that an adequate number of rate or price quotations were obtained from qualified sources for 13 small purchase procurements reviewed. Questioned Costs: Upon testing a sample of $45,625.42 in procurement transactions, known questioned costs of $12,921.61 were identified for expenditures that did not follow the School District’s procurement procedures. Using the total population of $327,567.83 in procurement transactions, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $92,770.73. Cause: The School District did not maintain evidence of review and approval of expenditures, journal entries, and procurement transactions as a result of oversight. Small purchase procurement transactions did not follow the School District’s procurement policy because the Federal Programs Director was unaware that it was necessary to follow these procedures for the purchase of instructional materials. Effect or Potential Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance and GaDOE guidance. Failure to review expenditures for allowability and journal entries for allowability and period of performance compliance exposes the School District to unnecessary risk of error and misuse of federal funds. In addition, failure to appropriately follow applicable procurement procedures exposes the School District to unnecessary risk of error and misuse of federal funds. Lastly, this deficiency could lead to the return of grant funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to the CLD program. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that all expenditures, journal entries, and procurement transactions reflect evidence of review for associated compliance requirements. In addition, expenditure voucher packages should contain all required components. Furthermore, the School District should evaluate and improve internal control procedures to ensure that required procurement methods are properly identified and followed and required procurement documentation is properly identified, safeguarded, and retained. Management should develop a monitoring process to ensure that these procedures are operating appropriately. Views of Responsible Officials: The finding states evidence of review and approval was not reflected for 17 expenditures. While 3 invoices were not approved, 14 were approved by multiple levels including the building level Principal, Central Office Director, including the Director in charge of the grant, and/or the Superintendent. Additionally, all expenditures charged to the grant were submitted to the Georgia Department of Education for review and approval for reimbursement of expenditures. All expenditures were approved and reimbursed. The finding states adequate evidence of receipt was not maintained for 20 expenditures; however, 10 of the expenditures were not for tangible items. Instead, the expenditures were for dues and fees and travel. Dues and fees and travel expenditures do not have packing slips due to the nature of the activity. Of the remaining 10, all but 1 were approved by multiple levels including the building level Principal, Central Office Director, including the Director in charge of the grant, and/or the Superintendent. Approval for payment isn’t granted unless items are received. The finding states evidence of review to ensure that the activity was allowable and occurred during the period of performance was not reflected for 2 journal entries. Both of the journal entries were usual in nature and occurred in the normal course of business including a journal entry to reverse accounts receivable from the prior year and a journal entry to record accounts receivable in the current year. Both journal entries are annual, standard journal entries that are required under Generally Accepted Accounting Principles. While not approved by the Director in charge of the grant, the journal entry was appropriate, allowable, and necessary to ensure revenues were accurately recorded in the proper accounting period. The finding states 4 procurement transactions did not reflect evidence of supervisory review and approval. While 4 transactions included invoices that were not approved by the Director in charge of the grant, 2 invoices were approved by the building level Principal and the Superintendent, and 1 was approved by the Superintendent. Three of the transactions included purchase orders that were properly approved by the Director in charge of the grant. Auditor’s Concluding Remarks: Under the Uniform Guidance, auditees are required to implement internal controls over federal awards. Upon completing procedures over internal controls associated with the Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Period of Performance, and Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirements, auditors obtained an understanding of internal controls put in place and subsequently tested those controls. Auditors noted that the internal controls described by the School District were not in place for the transactions identified. Based on this information, we reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the finding during our next audit.
2024-005 - Procurement and Suspension, and Debarment – Internal Control and Compliance over Procurement and Verification Against the System for Award Management (“SAM”) Identification of the Federal Program: Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Assistance Listing Title: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Pass-Through Entity: N/A Federal Award Identification Number: N/A Assistance Listing Number: 97.044 Assistance Listing Title: Assistance to Firefighters Grant Federal Agency: Department of Homeland Security Pass-Through Entity: N/A Federal Award Identification Number: EMW-2020-FG-15445, EMW-2021-FG-00268 Criteria or Specific Requirement (Including Statutory, Regulatory, or Other Citation): Suspension and Debarment, Non-Federal entities are prohibited from contracting with or making subawards under covered transactions to parties that are suspended or debarred. “Covered transactions” include those procurement contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (e.g., grant or cooperative agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000 or meet certain other criteria as specified in 2 CFR section 180.220. All nonprocurement transactions entered into by a recipient (i.e., subawards to subrecipients), irrespective of award amount, are considered covered transactions, unless they are exempt as provided in 2 CFR section 180.215. When a non-Federal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the non-Federal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. This verification may be accomplished by (1) checking the System for Award Management (SAM) Exclusions maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA) and available at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/ (Note: The OMB guidance at 2 CFR part 180 and agency implementing regulations still refer to the SAM Exclusions as the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS)), (2) collecting a certification from the entity, or (3) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that entity (2 CFR section 180.300). Pursuant to 2 CFR 200.318 of the Uniform Guidance, the City is required to comply with the procurement standards, when using federal funds. These standards require non‑federal entities to maintain and use documented procedures for procurement transactions under a Federal award or subaward, including for acquisition of property or services. These documented procurement procedures must be consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards identified in 2 CFR 200.317 through 2 CFR 200.327. The City’s purchasing policies require that all purchases charged to the City have an authorized Purchase Order (PO) in place before an order is placed or goods are received. The policy states that if an individual attempts to make a purchase without a City PO number, the vendor must request an authorized PO number and the name and department of the individual. The purchase order number is essential for conducting business with the City and ensures proper authorization, documentation, and payment. Therefore, all transactions including orders of goods or materials regardless of cost or type must be supported by a valid, approved PO prior to purchase activity. Condition: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (ARPA) During our audit, we noted that eleven (11) out of thirty seven (37) suspension and debarment samples tested, the City did not have documentation on verifying the vendors against the SAM to ensure that they were not suspended or debarred from federally funded purchases. We also noted that thirty one (31) out of thirty seven (37) procurement samples tested, the City didn’t have purchase orders for these samples. Assistance to Firefighters Grant During our audit, we noted that two (2) out of two (2) procurement samples tested, the City did not have documentation on verifying the vendors against the SAM to ensure that they were not suspended or debarred from federally funded purchases. Cause: The City did not have a consistent process in place to ensure that the procurement process have been followed and maintained, and to require staff maintain the proof of verification performed on checking the suspension or debarment over vendors that the City makes contracts with federally-funded projects. Effect or Potential Effect: The lack of purchase orders limits transparency into procurement process, approval, and authorization, and weakens internal controls over spending. Without verifying whether vendors are suspended or debarred from working on federally-funded projects, the City could be contracting with vendors that are prohibited from working on federally-funded projects. Questioned Costs: None. Context: See condition above for the context of the finding. Identification as a Repeat Finding, If Applicable: Not applicable. Recommendation: We recommended the City establish internal control procedures to monitor compliance requirements to ensure the procurement process is implemented and monitored, and vendors are not suspended or debarred from federallyfunded purchases. Views of Responsible Officials: Management concurs with the finding.