Assistance Listing Number(s): 10.553 and 10.555 Name of Federal Program or Cluster: Child Nutrition Cluster Name of Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Name of Pass-through Entity: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Pass-through Entity Identifying Number(s): 2023-138142-DPI-SB-546, 2023-138005-DPI-SB-546, 2023-138005-DPI-NSL-547, and 2023-138005-DPI-SK_NSLAE-566 Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Criteria: According to 2 CFR, Part 200.300 of the Uniform Guidance, a non-federal entity must have the following policies over compliance: cash management (section 200.302(b)(6)), allowability of costs (section 200.302(b)(7)), procurement (section 200.318-.326, reporting (section 200.303), special tests (section 200.303), travel (section 200.475(b)), compensation (section 200.430(a)(1)), and fringe benefits (section 200.431). Condition: Written policies and procedures are not in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Cause: Sufficient training has not been provided to individuals responsible for the development of written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Effect or Potential Effect: Lack of policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance could result in noncompliance, disallowed costs, or discontinuance of federal funding. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Additional training should be provided to individuals responsible for the development of written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials: One City Schools, Inc. agrees with the finding and are working on creating written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance.
Assistance Listing Number(s): 10.553 and 10.555 Name of Federal Program or Cluster: Child Nutrition Cluster Name of Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Name of Pass-through Entity: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Pass-through Entity Identifying Number(s): 2023-138142-DPI-SB-546, 2023-138005-DPI-SB-546, 2023-138005-DPI-NSL-547, and 2023-138005-DPI-SK_NSLAE-566 Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Criteria: According to 2 CFR, Part 200.300 of the Uniform Guidance, a non-federal entity must have the following policies over compliance: cash management (section 200.302(b)(6)), allowability of costs (section 200.302(b)(7)), procurement (section 200.318-.326, reporting (section 200.303), special tests (section 200.303), travel (section 200.475(b)), compensation (section 200.430(a)(1)), and fringe benefits (section 200.431). Condition: Written policies and procedures are not in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Cause: Sufficient training has not been provided to individuals responsible for the development of written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Effect or Potential Effect: Lack of policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance could result in noncompliance, disallowed costs, or discontinuance of federal funding. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Additional training should be provided to individuals responsible for the development of written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials: One City Schools, Inc. agrees with the finding and are working on creating written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance.
Assistance Listing Number(s): 10.553 and 10.555 Name of Federal Program or Cluster: Child Nutrition Cluster Name of Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Name of Pass-through Entity: Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction Pass-through Entity Identifying Number(s): 2023-138142-DPI-SB-546, 2023-138005-DPI-SB-546, 2023-138005-DPI-NSL-547, and 2023-138005-DPI-SK_NSLAE-566 Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Criteria: According to 2 CFR, Part 200.300 of the Uniform Guidance, a non-federal entity must have the following policies over compliance: cash management (section 200.302(b)(6)), allowability of costs (section 200.302(b)(7)), procurement (section 200.318-.326, reporting (section 200.303), special tests (section 200.303), travel (section 200.475(b)), compensation (section 200.430(a)(1)), and fringe benefits (section 200.431). Condition: Written policies and procedures are not in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Cause: Sufficient training has not been provided to individuals responsible for the development of written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Effect or Potential Effect: Lack of policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance could result in noncompliance, disallowed costs, or discontinuance of federal funding. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Additional training should be provided to individuals responsible for the development of written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials: One City Schools, Inc. agrees with the finding and are working on creating written policies and procedures in accordance with the Uniform Guidance.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program Title: Research and Development CFDA Number: Various Award Period: July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance (Other Matters) Criteria or specific requirement: Per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR sections 200.212, 200.318(h) and 180.300, along with 48 CFR section 52.209-6, a non-federal entity must have procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Condition: The University could not produce documentation to show that they performed suspension and debarment verification procedures prior to contracting with the vendors. Questioned costs: None. Context: For 2 of vendors we tested, the University did not maintain documentation to demonstrate that verification procedures were performed prior to contracting with the vendors. However, the University was able to subsequently verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: While the University has suspension and debarment procedures in place, they did not document that the check had been completed for these 2 vendors. Effect: If verification procedures are not performed in a timely manner, the University could enter into contracts with vendors who are suspended or debarred and risk noncompliance and/or disallowed costs. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend the University document suspension and debarment procedures going forward for any aggregate disbursements with vendors greater than $25,000. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Management has addressed their corrective action plan in a separately issued letter.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name 20.205, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Highway Planning and Construction Federal Award Identification Number and Year CPG222, CPG23, CPG223, MT23, OZ23, OZ22, IC22, IC23, PC23, PC22, RS23, RS22 Pass through Entity Michigan Department of Transportation Finding Type Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding No Criteria Under Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.319(d), a non federal entity must have written procedures for procurement transactions. Further, under 2 CFR 200.320(c), there are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply: 1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micropurchase threshold; 2) The item is available only from a single source; 3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; 4) The federal awarding agency or pass through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non federal entity; or 5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. In addition, under 2 CFR 200.318(h), the non federal entity must award 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. Further, the regulations under 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 Council did not have adequate controls in place to ensure compliance with the applicable procurement and suspension and debarment standards and its own internal procurement policy. Questioned Costs $125,000 Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed The questioned costs represent contracts entered into under noncompetitive procurement methods with opportunities for full and open competition and activity related to those contracts reported on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards for the period under audit. Context - During procurement testing, we noted two contracts over the Council's formal procurement threshold of $50,000 where the Council procured these services using noncompetitive methods. However, opportunities existed to procure services with full and open competition. Additionally, we noted six instances for which a check for suspension and debarment was not performed. The Council did perform the suspension and debarment check after we identified the noncompliance and noted that none of the six contractors were suspended or debarred; therefore, noting no questioned costs. Cause and Effect - Per review of the Council's financial management manual, we noted procurement guidelines for primary use vendors (those procured using noncompetitive methods) wer not clearly defined). Additionally, the Council's procurement guidelines are silent on services provided on an extended contract. Further, we noted a lack of controls surrounding chcks for suspension and debarment on primary use vendors. The lack of clarity within the Council's policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment resulted in the noncompliance. Recommendation - We recommend the Council update its policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment requirements under the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan - Management has revised the financial management manual with an updated procurement policy in accordance with federal regulations. The Council has developed detailed procedures and required documentation for staff to ensure compliance. Mandatory training will be provided to staff that engage in purchasing activities.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name 20.205, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Highway Planning and Construction Federal Award Identification Number and Year CPG222, CPG23, CPG223, MT23, OZ23, OZ22, IC22, IC23, PC23, PC22, RS23, RS22 Pass through Entity Michigan Department of Transportation Finding Type Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding No Criteria Under Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.319(d), a non federal entity must have written procedures for procurement transactions. Further, under 2 CFR 200.320(c), there are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply: 1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micropurchase threshold; 2) The item is available only from a single source; 3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; 4) The federal awarding agency or pass through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non federal entity; or 5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. In addition, under 2 CFR 200.318(h), the non federal entity must award 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. Further, the regulations under 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 Council did not have adequate controls in place to ensure compliance with the applicable procurement and suspension and debarment standards and its own internal procurement policy. Questioned Costs $125,000 Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed The questioned costs represent contracts entered into under noncompetitive procurement methods with opportunities for full and open competition and activity related to those contracts reported on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards for the period under audit. Context - During procurement testing, we noted two contracts over the Council's formal procurement threshold of $50,000 where the Council procured these services using noncompetitive methods. However, opportunities existed to procure services with full and open competition. Additionally, we noted six instances for which a check for suspension and debarment was not performed. The Council did perform the suspension and debarment check after we identified the noncompliance and noted that none of the six contractors were suspended or debarred; therefore, noting no questioned costs. Cause and Effect - Per review of the Council's financial management manual, we noted procurement guidelines for primary use vendors (those procured using noncompetitive methods) wer not clearly defined). Additionally, the Council's procurement guidelines are silent on services provided on an extended contract. Further, we noted a lack of controls surrounding chcks for suspension and debarment on primary use vendors. The lack of clarity within the Council's policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment resulted in the noncompliance. Recommendation - We recommend the Council update its policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment requirements under the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan - Management has revised the financial management manual with an updated procurement policy in accordance with federal regulations. The Council has developed detailed procedures and required documentation for staff to ensure compliance. Mandatory training will be provided to staff that engage in purchasing activities.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name 20.205, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Highway Planning and Construction Federal Award Identification Number and Year CPG222, CPG23, CPG223, MT23, OZ23, OZ22, IC22, IC23, PC23, PC22, RS23, RS22 Pass through Entity Michigan Department of Transportation Finding Type Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding No Criteria Under Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.319(d), a non federal entity must have written procedures for procurement transactions. Further, under 2 CFR 200.320(c), there are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply: 1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micropurchase threshold; 2) The item is available only from a single source; 3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; 4) The federal awarding agency or pass through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non federal entity; or 5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. In addition, under 2 CFR 200.318(h), the non federal entity must award 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. Further, the regulations under 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 Council did not have adequate controls in place to ensure compliance with the applicable procurement and suspension and debarment standards and its own internal procurement policy. Questioned Costs $125,000 Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed The questioned costs represent contracts entered into under noncompetitive procurement methods with opportunities for full and open competition and activity related to those contracts reported on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards for the period under audit. Context - During procurement testing, we noted two contracts over the Council's formal procurement threshold of $50,000 where the Council procured these services using noncompetitive methods. However, opportunities existed to procure services with full and open competition. Additionally, we noted six instances for which a check for suspension and debarment was not performed. The Council did perform the suspension and debarment check after we identified the noncompliance and noted that none of the six contractors were suspended or debarred; therefore, noting no questioned costs. Cause and Effect - Per review of the Council's financial management manual, we noted procurement guidelines for primary use vendors (those procured using noncompetitive methods) wer not clearly defined). Additionally, the Council's procurement guidelines are silent on services provided on an extended contract. Further, we noted a lack of controls surrounding chcks for suspension and debarment on primary use vendors. The lack of clarity within the Council's policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment resulted in the noncompliance. Recommendation - We recommend the Council update its policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment requirements under the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan - Management has revised the financial management manual with an updated procurement policy in accordance with federal regulations. The Council has developed detailed procedures and required documentation for staff to ensure compliance. Mandatory training will be provided to staff that engage in purchasing activities.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name 20.205, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Highway Planning and Construction Federal Award Identification Number and Year CPG222, CPG23, CPG223, MT23, OZ23, OZ22, IC22, IC23, PC23, PC22, RS23, RS22 Pass through Entity Michigan Department of Transportation Finding Type Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding No Criteria Under Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.319(d), a non federal entity must have written procedures for procurement transactions. Further, under 2 CFR 200.320(c), there are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply: 1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micropurchase threshold; 2) The item is available only from a single source; 3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; 4) The federal awarding agency or pass through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non federal entity; or 5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. In addition, under 2 CFR 200.318(h), the non federal entity must award 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. Further, the regulations under 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 Council did not have adequate controls in place to ensure compliance with the applicable procurement and suspension and debarment standards and its own internal procurement policy. Questioned Costs $125,000 Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed The questioned costs represent contracts entered into under noncompetitive procurement methods with opportunities for full and open competition and activity related to those contracts reported on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards for the period under audit. Context - During procurement testing, we noted two contracts over the Council's formal procurement threshold of $50,000 where the Council procured these services using noncompetitive methods. However, opportunities existed to procure services with full and open competition. Additionally, we noted six instances for which a check for suspension and debarment was not performed. The Council did perform the suspension and debarment check after we identified the noncompliance and noted that none of the six contractors were suspended or debarred; therefore, noting no questioned costs. Cause and Effect - Per review of the Council's financial management manual, we noted procurement guidelines for primary use vendors (those procured using noncompetitive methods) wer not clearly defined). Additionally, the Council's procurement guidelines are silent on services provided on an extended contract. Further, we noted a lack of controls surrounding chcks for suspension and debarment on primary use vendors. The lack of clarity within the Council's policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment resulted in the noncompliance. Recommendation - We recommend the Council update its policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment requirements under the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan - Management has revised the financial management manual with an updated procurement policy in accordance with federal regulations. The Council has developed detailed procedures and required documentation for staff to ensure compliance. Mandatory training will be provided to staff that engage in purchasing activities.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name 20.205, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Highway Planning and Construction Federal Award Identification Number and Year CPG222, CPG23, CPG223, MT23, OZ23, OZ22, IC22, IC23, PC23, PC22, RS23, RS22 Pass through Entity Michigan Department of Transportation Finding Type Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding No Criteria Under Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.319(d), a non federal entity must have written procedures for procurement transactions. Further, under 2 CFR 200.320(c), there are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply: 1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micropurchase threshold; 2) The item is available only from a single source; 3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; 4) The federal awarding agency or pass through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non federal entity; or 5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. In addition, under 2 CFR 200.318(h), the non federal entity must award 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. Further, the regulations under 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 Council did not have adequate controls in place to ensure compliance with the applicable procurement and suspension and debarment standards and its own internal procurement policy. Questioned Costs $125,000 Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed The questioned costs represent contracts entered into under noncompetitive procurement methods with opportunities for full and open competition and activity related to those contracts reported on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards for the period under audit. Context - During procurement testing, we noted two contracts over the Council's formal procurement threshold of $50,000 where the Council procured these services using noncompetitive methods. However, opportunities existed to procure services with full and open competition. Additionally, we noted six instances for which a check for suspension and debarment was not performed. The Council did perform the suspension and debarment check after we identified the noncompliance and noted that none of the six contractors were suspended or debarred; therefore, noting no questioned costs. Cause and Effect - Per review of the Council's financial management manual, we noted procurement guidelines for primary use vendors (those procured using noncompetitive methods) wer not clearly defined). Additionally, the Council's procurement guidelines are silent on services provided on an extended contract. Further, we noted a lack of controls surrounding chcks for suspension and debarment on primary use vendors. The lack of clarity within the Council's policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment resulted in the noncompliance. Recommendation - We recommend the Council update its policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment requirements under the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan - Management has revised the financial management manual with an updated procurement policy in accordance with federal regulations. The Council has developed detailed procedures and required documentation for staff to ensure compliance. Mandatory training will be provided to staff that engage in purchasing activities.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name 20.205, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Highway Planning and Construction Federal Award Identification Number and Year CPG222, CPG23, CPG223, MT23, OZ23, OZ22, IC22, IC23, PC23, PC22, RS23, RS22 Pass through Entity Michigan Department of Transportation Finding Type Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding No Criteria Under Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.319(d), a non federal entity must have written procedures for procurement transactions. Further, under 2 CFR 200.320(c), there are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply: 1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micropurchase threshold; 2) The item is available only from a single source; 3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; 4) The federal awarding agency or pass through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non federal entity; or 5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. In addition, under 2 CFR 200.318(h), the non federal entity must award 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. Further, the regulations under 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 Council did not have adequate controls in place to ensure compliance with the applicable procurement and suspension and debarment standards and its own internal procurement policy. Questioned Costs $125,000 Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed The questioned costs represent contracts entered into under noncompetitive procurement methods with opportunities for full and open competition and activity related to those contracts reported on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards for the period under audit. Context - During procurement testing, we noted two contracts over the Council's formal procurement threshold of $50,000 where the Council procured these services using noncompetitive methods. However, opportunities existed to procure services with full and open competition. Additionally, we noted six instances for which a check for suspension and debarment was not performed. The Council did perform the suspension and debarment check after we identified the noncompliance and noted that none of the six contractors were suspended or debarred; therefore, noting no questioned costs. Cause and Effect - Per review of the Council's financial management manual, we noted procurement guidelines for primary use vendors (those procured using noncompetitive methods) wer not clearly defined). Additionally, the Council's procurement guidelines are silent on services provided on an extended contract. Further, we noted a lack of controls surrounding chcks for suspension and debarment on primary use vendors. The lack of clarity within the Council's policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment resulted in the noncompliance. Recommendation - We recommend the Council update its policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment requirements under the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan - Management has revised the financial management manual with an updated procurement policy in accordance with federal regulations. The Council has developed detailed procedures and required documentation for staff to ensure compliance. Mandatory training will be provided to staff that engage in purchasing activities.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name 20.205, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Highway Planning and Construction Federal Award Identification Number and Year CPG222, CPG23, CPG223, MT23, OZ23, OZ22, IC22, IC23, PC23, PC22, RS23, RS22 Pass through Entity Michigan Department of Transportation Finding Type Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding No Criteria Under Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.319(d), a non federal entity must have written procedures for procurement transactions. Further, under 2 CFR 200.320(c), there are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply: 1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micropurchase threshold; 2) The item is available only from a single source; 3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; 4) The federal awarding agency or pass through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non federal entity; or 5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. In addition, under 2 CFR 200.318(h), the non federal entity must award 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. Further, the regulations under 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 Council did not have adequate controls in place to ensure compliance with the applicable procurement and suspension and debarment standards and its own internal procurement policy. Questioned Costs $125,000 Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed The questioned costs represent contracts entered into under noncompetitive procurement methods with opportunities for full and open competition and activity related to those contracts reported on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards for the period under audit. Context - During procurement testing, we noted two contracts over the Council's formal procurement threshold of $50,000 where the Council procured these services using noncompetitive methods. However, opportunities existed to procure services with full and open competition. Additionally, we noted six instances for which a check for suspension and debarment was not performed. The Council did perform the suspension and debarment check after we identified the noncompliance and noted that none of the six contractors were suspended or debarred; therefore, noting no questioned costs. Cause and Effect - Per review of the Council's financial management manual, we noted procurement guidelines for primary use vendors (those procured using noncompetitive methods) wer not clearly defined). Additionally, the Council's procurement guidelines are silent on services provided on an extended contract. Further, we noted a lack of controls surrounding chcks for suspension and debarment on primary use vendors. The lack of clarity within the Council's policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment resulted in the noncompliance. Recommendation - We recommend the Council update its policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment requirements under the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan - Management has revised the financial management manual with an updated procurement policy in accordance with federal regulations. The Council has developed detailed procedures and required documentation for staff to ensure compliance. Mandatory training will be provided to staff that engage in purchasing activities.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name 20.205, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Highway Planning and Construction Federal Award Identification Number and Year CPG222, CPG23, CPG223, MT23, OZ23, OZ22, IC22, IC23, PC23, PC22, RS23, RS22 Pass through Entity Michigan Department of Transportation Finding Type Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding No Criteria Under Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.319(d), a non federal entity must have written procedures for procurement transactions. Further, under 2 CFR 200.320(c), there are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply: 1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micropurchase threshold; 2) The item is available only from a single source; 3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; 4) The federal awarding agency or pass through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non federal entity; or 5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. In addition, under 2 CFR 200.318(h), the non federal entity must award 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. Further, the regulations under 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 Council did not have adequate controls in place to ensure compliance with the applicable procurement and suspension and debarment standards and its own internal procurement policy. Questioned Costs $125,000 Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed The questioned costs represent contracts entered into under noncompetitive procurement methods with opportunities for full and open competition and activity related to those contracts reported on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards for the period under audit. Context - During procurement testing, we noted two contracts over the Council's formal procurement threshold of $50,000 where the Council procured these services using noncompetitive methods. However, opportunities existed to procure services with full and open competition. Additionally, we noted six instances for which a check for suspension and debarment was not performed. The Council did perform the suspension and debarment check after we identified the noncompliance and noted that none of the six contractors were suspended or debarred; therefore, noting no questioned costs. Cause and Effect - Per review of the Council's financial management manual, we noted procurement guidelines for primary use vendors (those procured using noncompetitive methods) wer not clearly defined). Additionally, the Council's procurement guidelines are silent on services provided on an extended contract. Further, we noted a lack of controls surrounding chcks for suspension and debarment on primary use vendors. The lack of clarity within the Council's policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment resulted in the noncompliance. Recommendation - We recommend the Council update its policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment requirements under the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan - Management has revised the financial management manual with an updated procurement policy in accordance with federal regulations. The Council has developed detailed procedures and required documentation for staff to ensure compliance. Mandatory training will be provided to staff that engage in purchasing activities.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name 20.205, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Highway Planning and Construction Federal Award Identification Number and Year CPG222, CPG23, CPG223, MT23, OZ23, OZ22, IC22, IC23, PC23, PC22, RS23, RS22 Pass through Entity Michigan Department of Transportation Finding Type Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding No Criteria Under Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.319(d), a non federal entity must have written procedures for procurement transactions. Further, under 2 CFR 200.320(c), there are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply: 1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micropurchase threshold; 2) The item is available only from a single source; 3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; 4) The federal awarding agency or pass through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non federal entity; or 5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. In addition, under 2 CFR 200.318(h), the non federal entity must award 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. Further, the regulations under 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 Council did not have adequate controls in place to ensure compliance with the applicable procurement and suspension and debarment standards and its own internal procurement policy. Questioned Costs $125,000 Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed The questioned costs represent contracts entered into under noncompetitive procurement methods with opportunities for full and open competition and activity related to those contracts reported on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards for the period under audit. Context - During procurement testing, we noted two contracts over the Council's formal procurement threshold of $50,000 where the Council procured these services using noncompetitive methods. However, opportunities existed to procure services with full and open competition. Additionally, we noted six instances for which a check for suspension and debarment was not performed. The Council did perform the suspension and debarment check after we identified the noncompliance and noted that none of the six contractors were suspended or debarred; therefore, noting no questioned costs. Cause and Effect - Per review of the Council's financial management manual, we noted procurement guidelines for primary use vendors (those procured using noncompetitive methods) wer not clearly defined). Additionally, the Council's procurement guidelines are silent on services provided on an extended contract. Further, we noted a lack of controls surrounding chcks for suspension and debarment on primary use vendors. The lack of clarity within the Council's policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment resulted in the noncompliance. Recommendation - We recommend the Council update its policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment requirements under the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan - Management has revised the financial management manual with an updated procurement policy in accordance with federal regulations. The Council has developed detailed procedures and required documentation for staff to ensure compliance. Mandatory training will be provided to staff that engage in purchasing activities.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name 20.205, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Highway Planning and Construction Federal Award Identification Number and Year CPG222, CPG23, CPG223, MT23, OZ23, OZ22, IC22, IC23, PC23, PC22, RS23, RS22 Pass through Entity Michigan Department of Transportation Finding Type Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding No Criteria Under Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.319(d), a non federal entity must have written procedures for procurement transactions. Further, under 2 CFR 200.320(c), there are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply: 1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micropurchase threshold; 2) The item is available only from a single source; 3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; 4) The federal awarding agency or pass through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non federal entity; or 5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. In addition, under 2 CFR 200.318(h), the non federal entity must award 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. Further, the regulations under 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 Council did not have adequate controls in place to ensure compliance with the applicable procurement and suspension and debarment standards and its own internal procurement policy. Questioned Costs $125,000 Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed The questioned costs represent contracts entered into under noncompetitive procurement methods with opportunities for full and open competition and activity related to those contracts reported on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards for the period under audit. Context - During procurement testing, we noted two contracts over the Council's formal procurement threshold of $50,000 where the Council procured these services using noncompetitive methods. However, opportunities existed to procure services with full and open competition. Additionally, we noted six instances for which a check for suspension and debarment was not performed. The Council did perform the suspension and debarment check after we identified the noncompliance and noted that none of the six contractors were suspended or debarred; therefore, noting no questioned costs. Cause and Effect - Per review of the Council's financial management manual, we noted procurement guidelines for primary use vendors (those procured using noncompetitive methods) wer not clearly defined). Additionally, the Council's procurement guidelines are silent on services provided on an extended contract. Further, we noted a lack of controls surrounding chcks for suspension and debarment on primary use vendors. The lack of clarity within the Council's policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment resulted in the noncompliance. Recommendation - We recommend the Council update its policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment requirements under the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan - Management has revised the financial management manual with an updated procurement policy in accordance with federal regulations. The Council has developed detailed procedures and required documentation for staff to ensure compliance. Mandatory training will be provided to staff that engage in purchasing activities.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name 20.205, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Highway Planning and Construction Federal Award Identification Number and Year CPG222, CPG23, CPG223, MT23, OZ23, OZ22, IC22, IC23, PC23, PC22, RS23, RS22 Pass through Entity Michigan Department of Transportation Finding Type Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding No Criteria Under Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.319(d), a non federal entity must have written procedures for procurement transactions. Further, under 2 CFR 200.320(c), there are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply: 1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micropurchase threshold; 2) The item is available only from a single source; 3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; 4) The federal awarding agency or pass through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non federal entity; or 5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. In addition, under 2 CFR 200.318(h), the non federal entity must award 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. Further, the regulations under 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 Council did not have adequate controls in place to ensure compliance with the applicable procurement and suspension and debarment standards and its own internal procurement policy. Questioned Costs $125,000 Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed The questioned costs represent contracts entered into under noncompetitive procurement methods with opportunities for full and open competition and activity related to those contracts reported on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards for the period under audit. Context - During procurement testing, we noted two contracts over the Council's formal procurement threshold of $50,000 where the Council procured these services using noncompetitive methods. However, opportunities existed to procure services with full and open competition. Additionally, we noted six instances for which a check for suspension and debarment was not performed. The Council did perform the suspension and debarment check after we identified the noncompliance and noted that none of the six contractors were suspended or debarred; therefore, noting no questioned costs. Cause and Effect - Per review of the Council's financial management manual, we noted procurement guidelines for primary use vendors (those procured using noncompetitive methods) wer not clearly defined). Additionally, the Council's procurement guidelines are silent on services provided on an extended contract. Further, we noted a lack of controls surrounding chcks for suspension and debarment on primary use vendors. The lack of clarity within the Council's policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment resulted in the noncompliance. Recommendation - We recommend the Council update its policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment requirements under the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan - Management has revised the financial management manual with an updated procurement policy in accordance with federal regulations. The Council has developed detailed procedures and required documentation for staff to ensure compliance. Mandatory training will be provided to staff that engage in purchasing activities.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name 20.205, U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration Highway Planning and Construction Federal Award Identification Number and Year CPG222, CPG23, CPG223, MT23, OZ23, OZ22, IC22, IC23, PC23, PC22, RS23, RS22 Pass through Entity Michigan Department of Transportation Finding Type Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding No Criteria Under Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.319(d), a non federal entity must have written procedures for procurement transactions. Further, under 2 CFR 200.320(c), there are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply: 1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micropurchase threshold; 2) The item is available only from a single source; 3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; 4) The federal awarding agency or pass through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non federal entity; or 5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. In addition, under 2 CFR 200.318(h), the non federal entity must award 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. Further, the regulations under 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 Council did not have adequate controls in place to ensure compliance with the applicable procurement and suspension and debarment standards and its own internal procurement policy. Questioned Costs $125,000 Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed The questioned costs represent contracts entered into under noncompetitive procurement methods with opportunities for full and open competition and activity related to those contracts reported on the schedule of expenditures of federal awards for the period under audit. Context - During procurement testing, we noted two contracts over the Council's formal procurement threshold of $50,000 where the Council procured these services using noncompetitive methods. However, opportunities existed to procure services with full and open competition. Additionally, we noted six instances for which a check for suspension and debarment was not performed. The Council did perform the suspension and debarment check after we identified the noncompliance and noted that none of the six contractors were suspended or debarred; therefore, noting no questioned costs. Cause and Effect - Per review of the Council's financial management manual, we noted procurement guidelines for primary use vendors (those procured using noncompetitive methods) wer not clearly defined). Additionally, the Council's procurement guidelines are silent on services provided on an extended contract. Further, we noted a lack of controls surrounding chcks for suspension and debarment on primary use vendors. The lack of clarity within the Council's policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment resulted in the noncompliance. Recommendation - We recommend the Council update its policies and procedures to align with procurement, suspension, and debarment requirements under the Uniform Guidance. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan - Management has revised the financial management manual with an updated procurement policy in accordance with federal regulations. The Council has developed detailed procedures and required documentation for staff to ensure compliance. Mandatory training will be provided to staff that engage in purchasing activities.
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 2022, FY 2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters. Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-002. Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance for 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 non-federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $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. There was no documented oversight, review, or approval process in place at the School Corporation to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources for small purchases. The School Corporation did not obtain price or rate quotes for five of the five vendors tested. A total of $82,230 was spent with the five vendors. Documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used, was not available for audit. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria Indiana Code 4-13.6-5-2 states: "(a) Except as provided by this chapter and IC 16-33-4-10, if the estimated cost of a public works project is at least one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), the division shall award a contract for the project based on competitive bids. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 GREENCASTLE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (b) If the estimated cost of a public works project is at least one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), the division shall develop contract documents for a public works contract and keep the contract documents on file in its offices so that they may be inspected by contractors and members of the public. . . ." 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(i) states: "The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (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. . . ." 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 effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 GREENCASTLE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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. 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 the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls and adhere to procurement procedures for all purchases of goods and services. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 2022, FY 2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters. Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-002. Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance for 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 non-federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $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. There was no documented oversight, review, or approval process in place at the School Corporation to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources for small purchases. The School Corporation did not obtain price or rate quotes for five of the five vendors tested. A total of $82,230 was spent with the five vendors. Documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used, was not available for audit. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria Indiana Code 4-13.6-5-2 states: "(a) Except as provided by this chapter and IC 16-33-4-10, if the estimated cost of a public works project is at least one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), the division shall award a contract for the project based on competitive bids. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 GREENCASTLE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (b) If the estimated cost of a public works project is at least one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), the division shall develop contract documents for a public works contract and keep the contract documents on file in its offices so that they may be inspected by contractors and members of the public. . . ." 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(i) states: "The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (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. . . ." 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 effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 GREENCASTLE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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. 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 the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls and adhere to procurement procedures for all purchases of goods and services. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 2022, FY 2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters. Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-002. Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance for 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 non-federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $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. There was no documented oversight, review, or approval process in place at the School Corporation to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources for small purchases. The School Corporation did not obtain price or rate quotes for five of the five vendors tested. A total of $82,230 was spent with the five vendors. Documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used, was not available for audit. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria Indiana Code 4-13.6-5-2 states: "(a) Except as provided by this chapter and IC 16-33-4-10, if the estimated cost of a public works project is at least one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), the division shall award a contract for the project based on competitive bids. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 GREENCASTLE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (b) If the estimated cost of a public works project is at least one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), the division shall develop contract documents for a public works contract and keep the contract documents on file in its offices so that they may be inspected by contractors and members of the public. . . ." 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(i) states: "The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (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. . . ." 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 effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 GREENCASTLE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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. 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 the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls and adhere to procurement procedures for all purchases of goods and services. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 2022, FY 2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters. Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-002. Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance for 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 non-federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $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. There was no documented oversight, review, or approval process in place at the School Corporation to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources for small purchases. The School Corporation did not obtain price or rate quotes for five of the five vendors tested. A total of $82,230 was spent with the five vendors. Documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used, was not available for audit. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria Indiana Code 4-13.6-5-2 states: "(a) Except as provided by this chapter and IC 16-33-4-10, if the estimated cost of a public works project is at least one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), the division shall award a contract for the project based on competitive bids. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 GREENCASTLE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (b) If the estimated cost of a public works project is at least one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), the division shall develop contract documents for a public works contract and keep the contract documents on file in its offices so that they may be inspected by contractors and members of the public. . . ." 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(i) states: "The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (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. . . ." 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 effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 GREENCASTLE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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. 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 the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls and adhere to procurement procedures for all purchases of goods and services. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23
FINDING 2023-003 Subject: Child Nutrition Cluster - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of Agriculture Federal Programs: School Breakfast Program, National School Lunch Program, Summer Food Service Program for Children Assistance Listings Numbers: 10.553, 10.555, 10.559 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): FY 2022, FY 2023 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters. Repeat Finding This is a repeat finding from the immediately prior audit report. The prior audit finding number was 2021-002. Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance for 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 non-federal entity. As Indiana Code has set a more restrictive threshold of $150,000, informal procurement methods are permitted when the value of the procurement does not exceed $150,000. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds. Micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $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. There was no documented oversight, review, or approval process in place at the School Corporation to ensure proper procedures were followed and price or rate quotations were obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources for small purchases. The School Corporation did not obtain price or rate quotes for five of the five vendors tested. A total of $82,230 was spent with the five vendors. Documentation detailing the history of procurement, which must include the reason for the procurement method used, was not available for audit. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria Indiana Code 4-13.6-5-2 states: "(a) Except as provided by this chapter and IC 16-33-4-10, if the estimated cost of a public works project is at least one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), the division shall award a contract for the project based on competitive bids. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 GREENCASTLE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (b) If the estimated cost of a public works project is at least one hundred fifty thousand dollars ($150,000), the division shall develop contract documents for a public works contract and keep the contract documents on file in its offices so that they may be inspected by contractors and members of the public. . . ." 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(i) states: "The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. (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. . . ." 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 effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 GREENCASTLE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 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. 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 the School Corporation's management establish a system of internal controls and adhere to procurement procedures for all purchases of goods and services. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23