Criteria: The District is required to conduct all procurement transactions in a manner providing full and open competition, in accordance with 2 CFR section 200.319. Condition: In reviewing online scanned documentation for accounts payable expenditures, we did not find any evidence of quotes or bids obtained for purchased supplies and equipment meeting the threshold requiring such quotes or bids. We also noted one expenditure in our sample that did not include an approved purchase order/requisition. Effect: The District was not in compliance with Procurement, Suspension and Debarment requirements for IDEA and is unable to substantiate that it provided full and open competition and received the best value for items purchased. Questioned Costs: Questioned costs include all supplies purchased with a cost over $1,000 that should have included documentation of quotes or bids. The total is $64,099. Cause: Unknown. While documentation of quotes and bids are typically included as part of the accounts payable documentation package, it is possible that these were stored elsewhere and have been misplaced. Recommendation: The District should follow procurement policies and include documentation that quotes and bids were obtained where required. District response: The District no longer exists due to consolidation. Procurement policy and procedures will be practiced in the new district.
Criteria: The District is required to conduct all procurement transactions in a manner providing full and open competition, in accordance with 2 CFR section 200.319. Condition: In reviewing online scanned documentation for accounts payable expenditures, we did not find any evidence of quotes or bids obtained for purchased supplies and equipment meeting the threshold requiring such quotes or bids. We also noted one expenditure in our sample that did not include an approved purchase order/requisition. Effect: The District was not in compliance with Procurement, Suspension and Debarment requirements for IDEA and is unable to substantiate that it provided full and open competition and received the best value for items purchased. Questioned Costs: Questioned costs include all supplies purchased with a cost over $1,000 that should have included documentation of quotes or bids. The total is $64,099. Cause: Unknown. While documentation of quotes and bids are typically included as part of the accounts payable documentation package, it is possible that these were stored elsewhere and have been misplaced. Recommendation: The District should follow procurement policies and include documentation that quotes and bids were obtained where required. District response: The District no longer exists due to consolidation. Procurement policy and procedures will be practiced in the new district.
Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Program Name Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) HEERF Institutional Portion, ALN. 84.425F HEERF Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), ALN. 84.425L Name of Federal Agency U.S. Department of Education Pass-through Entity N/A Criteria According to 2 CFR Section 200.319, all procurement transactions must be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition. According to 2 CFR Section 200.320 there are three types of procurement methods described in this section: informal procurement methods (for micro-purchases and simplified acquisitions); formal procurement methods (through sealed bids or proposals); and noncompetitive procurement methods. For any of these methods, the recipient or subrecipient must maintain and use documented procurement procedures. 2 CFR section 180.220(b)(1) non-federal entities are prohibited from contracting with or making subawards under covered transactions to parties that are suspended or debarred. “Covered transactions” include contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (e.g., grant or cooperative agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. Condition As part of our testing of fifteen (15) disbursements from institutional funds, we noted the following instances of non-compliance: 1. Six (6) transactions weren’t conducted in a manner providing full and open competition, no quotes nor quote analysis were available for examination. 2. Six (6) transactions Suspension and Debarment verification weren’t performed. Cause The exceptions mentioned above are the result of the failure to implement adequate internal control procedures, such as thorough managerial review, which should detect and correct, on a timely basis, instances where controls are not being followed. Effect The institution COVID-19 policies and procedures were not followed, did not provide for full and open competition and suspension and debarment verification were not performed, as a result of that the USDE could be required to reimburse federal funds to the grantor for the expenditures incurred. Questioned Cost $201,543 Context Of the 142 disbursements, we selected 15 transactions for testing and noted the following instances of noncompliance: 1. Transactions were not conducted in a manner providing full and open competition 6 2. Suspension and Debarment verification were not performed 6 Identification of a Repeat Finding This is not a repeat finding from the immediate previous audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions The Institution management agrees with this finding. Please refer to the corrective action plan on pages 22-26. Recommendation We recommend the Institution to establish adequate procedures and controls, which shall consider, among others, the following: • Shall improve its internal controls over the filing and safeguarding of documents in order to easily identify and retrieve payment vouchers and all related supporting documentation. • Establish and implement written policies and procedures for all aspects of the Purchase administration, including controls for proper review and authorization during the processing and payment of program expenditures. Payment documents and related supporting documentation shall be thoroughly reviewed before they are recorded and processed for payment. All payment vouchers shall be properly authorized by the respective Institution’s representatives and shall be supported with all the required documentation. • Provide adequate training to employees regarding each program requirements and proper procurement and disbursement processing procedures, and as to the importance of safeguarding procedures and the proper coordination and communication for the retrieval of documents when needed.
Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Program Name Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) HEERF Institutional Portion, ALN. 84.425F HEERF Minority Serving Institutions (MSIs), ALN. 84.425L Name of Federal Agency U.S. Department of Education Pass-through Entity N/A Criteria According to 2 CFR Section 200.319, all procurement transactions must be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition. According to 2 CFR Section 200.320 there are three types of procurement methods described in this section: informal procurement methods (for micro-purchases and simplified acquisitions); formal procurement methods (through sealed bids or proposals); and noncompetitive procurement methods. For any of these methods, the recipient or subrecipient must maintain and use documented procurement procedures. 2 CFR section 180.220(b)(1) non-federal entities are prohibited from contracting with or making subawards under covered transactions to parties that are suspended or debarred. “Covered transactions” include contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (e.g., grant or cooperative agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. Condition As part of our testing of fifteen (15) disbursements from institutional funds, we noted the following instances of non-compliance: 1. Six (6) transactions weren’t conducted in a manner providing full and open competition, no quotes nor quote analysis were available for examination. 2. Six (6) transactions Suspension and Debarment verification weren’t performed. Cause The exceptions mentioned above are the result of the failure to implement adequate internal control procedures, such as thorough managerial review, which should detect and correct, on a timely basis, instances where controls are not being followed. Effect The institution COVID-19 policies and procedures were not followed, did not provide for full and open competition and suspension and debarment verification were not performed, as a result of that the USDE could be required to reimburse federal funds to the grantor for the expenditures incurred. Questioned Cost $201,543 Context Of the 142 disbursements, we selected 15 transactions for testing and noted the following instances of noncompliance: 1. Transactions were not conducted in a manner providing full and open competition 6 2. Suspension and Debarment verification were not performed 6 Identification of a Repeat Finding This is not a repeat finding from the immediate previous audit. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions The Institution management agrees with this finding. Please refer to the corrective action plan on pages 22-26. Recommendation We recommend the Institution to establish adequate procedures and controls, which shall consider, among others, the following: • Shall improve its internal controls over the filing and safeguarding of documents in order to easily identify and retrieve payment vouchers and all related supporting documentation. • Establish and implement written policies and procedures for all aspects of the Purchase administration, including controls for proper review and authorization during the processing and payment of program expenditures. Payment documents and related supporting documentation shall be thoroughly reviewed before they are recorded and processed for payment. All payment vouchers shall be properly authorized by the respective Institution’s representatives and shall be supported with all the required documentation. • Provide adequate training to employees regarding each program requirements and proper procurement and disbursement processing procedures, and as to the importance of safeguarding procedures and the proper coordination and communication for the retrieval of documents when needed.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Program Name: Child Nutrition Cluster; Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 10.559; 21.027 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 214RI306N1099/214RI306N1199 - 2022 Award Period: Fiscal Year 2022 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement The Town and Coventry Public Schools must comply with procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318 through 200.326 within Uniform Guidance. Control: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in "Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government" issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the Internal Control Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). UG §200.318 General procurement standards. (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. §200.320 states that the non-Federal entity must use one of the prescribed methods of procurement. (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: (1) Micro-purchases. Procurement by micro-purchase is the acquisition of supplies or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold (See the definition of micro-purchase in §200.1). To the maximum extent practicable, the non-Federal entity should distribute micro-purchases equitably among qualified suppliers. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price or rate quotations if the non-Federal entity considers the price to be reasonable based on research, experience, purchase history or other information and documents it files accordingly. Purchase cards can be used for micro-purchases if procedures are documented and approved by the non-Federal entity. (2) Small purchase. Procurement by small purchase is 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. (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance award exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a noncompetitive procurement can be used in accordance with §200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: (1) Sealed bids. Bids are publicly solicited, and a firm fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price) is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is the lowest in price. (2) Proposals. Either a fixed price or cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. (c) Noncompetitive procurement. There are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the allowed circumstances apply. Condition The Towns purchasing policies within Coventry Public Schools do not include all elements as outlined in 2 CRF sections 200.303 and 200.318 through 200.326 noted above. Questioned Costs None Context Although the Towns purchasing policies within Coventry Public Schools do not include all elements as outlined in 2 CRF sections 200.303 and 200.318 through 200.326, we did not identify transactions where contracts were awarded without proper justification in 4 of 4 procurement transactions tested. Cause Management was not aware of the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318 through 200.326 within Uniform Guidance. Effect The Town and Coventry Public Schools are at risk for noncompliance with Federal grants as it relates to procurement. Repeat Finding Yes Recommendation We recommend that the Town and Coventry Public Schools updates its procurement policy to include all elements identified in 2 CRF sections 200.303 and 200.318 through 200.326. Views of Responsible Officials Management agrees with this finding.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture; U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Program Name: Child Nutrition Cluster; Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 10.559; 21.027 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 214RI306N1099/214RI306N1199 - 2022 Award Period: Fiscal Year 2022 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement The Town and Coventry Public Schools must comply with procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318 through 200.326 within Uniform Guidance. Control: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in "Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government" issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the Internal Control Integrated Framework issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). UG §200.318 General procurement standards. (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. §200.320 states that the non-Federal entity must use one of the prescribed methods of procurement. (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: (1) Micro-purchases. Procurement by micro-purchase is the acquisition of supplies or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold (See the definition of micro-purchase in §200.1). To the maximum extent practicable, the non-Federal entity should distribute micro-purchases equitably among qualified suppliers. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price or rate quotations if the non-Federal entity considers the price to be reasonable based on research, experience, purchase history or other information and documents it files accordingly. Purchase cards can be used for micro-purchases if procedures are documented and approved by the non-Federal entity. (2) Small purchase. Procurement by small purchase is 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. (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance award exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a noncompetitive procurement can be used in accordance with §200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: (1) Sealed bids. Bids are publicly solicited, and a firm fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price) is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is the lowest in price. (2) Proposals. Either a fixed price or cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. (c) Noncompetitive procurement. There are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the allowed circumstances apply. Condition The Towns purchasing policies within Coventry Public Schools do not include all elements as outlined in 2 CRF sections 200.303 and 200.318 through 200.326 noted above. Questioned Costs None Context Although the Towns purchasing policies within Coventry Public Schools do not include all elements as outlined in 2 CRF sections 200.303 and 200.318 through 200.326, we did not identify transactions where contracts were awarded without proper justification in 4 of 4 procurement transactions tested. Cause Management was not aware of the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318 through 200.326 within Uniform Guidance. Effect The Town and Coventry Public Schools are at risk for noncompliance with Federal grants as it relates to procurement. Repeat Finding Yes Recommendation We recommend that the Town and Coventry Public Schools updates its procurement policy to include all elements identified in 2 CRF sections 200.303 and 200.318 through 200.326. Views of Responsible Officials Management agrees with this finding.
Condition: During the test of 100% of expenditures, two (2) expenditures totaling $570,080, for the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, the following noncompliance with the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement was noted: • The County failed to properly document the expenditure for one (1) of the two (2) federal expenditures totaling $500,000. They did not execute a contract or award documents, and the invoice was not itemized. This expenditure had a questioned cost of $500,000. Cause of Condition: Policies and procedures have not been designed and implemented to ensure federal expenditures are made in accordance with federal compliance requirements. Effect of Condition: This condition resulted in noncompliance with federal grant requirements and could result in a loss of federal funds. Recommendation: OSAI recommends the County gain an understanding of the requirements for this program and implement internal controls to ensure compliance with these requirements. Management Response: Board of County Commissioners: The Board of County Commissioners is responsible for the overall fiscal concerns of the county. See OKLA. STAT. Title 19, § 345. The Board of County Commissioners, with the cooperation and participation of all elected officials, reviews, develops and implements policies and procedures to create a strong internal control environment. The Board of County Commissioners will work with all elected officials, the third-party administrator, and federal, state and local partners to develop policies, procedures, and internal controls designed to accurately track grants, including the application process, verification, oversight, and reporting of grant requirements. These policies and procedures will be designed to identify requirements for recipients and sub-recipients of grants, ensure accurate equipment and real property management, procurement, recipient and subrecipient monitoring and reporting. Further, policies will ensure a proper understanding of all grant requirements and compliance of the same. To assist in this process, the Board of County Commissioners engaged a third-party administrator to oversee the grant process, including application, eligibility, review, requirements, contracting, recipient tracking and oversight, and documentation and reporting. The Board of County Commissioners will work with the third-party administrator to ensure proper grant administration. Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303(a) Internal Controls reads as follows: The non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 2 CFR § 200.320 Internal Controls reads as follows: There are three types of procurement methods described in this section: informal procurement methods (for micro-purchases and simplified acquisitions); formal procurement methods (through sealed bids or proposals); and noncompetitive procurement methods. For any of these methods, the recipient or subrecipient must maintain and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319.
Condition: Upon inquiry of county personnel and a test of twenty (20) disbursement totaling $303,873, the following instances of noncompliance were noted: • The County failed to document suspension and debarment of vendors for purchases over $25,000. • The County failed to have written standards of conduct that cover conflicts of interest and that govern the performance of its employees engaged in the selection, award, and administration of contract. Cause of Condition: Policies and procedures have not been designed and implemented to ensure federal disbursements are made in accordance with federal compliance requirements. Effect of Condition: This condition resulted in noncompliance with grant requirements and could result in a loss of federal funds. Recommendation: OSAI recommends the County gain an understanding of the grant requirements for this program and implement internal controls to ensure compliance with these grant requirements. Management Response: Chairman of the Board of County Commissioners: These procurement issues originated during the prior County Clerk’s administration, but the current leadership is focused on corrective measures. Together, we are: • developing a SOP to ensure vendor checks for suspension and debarment are conducted on all purchases over $25,000, • establishing written standards of conduct to address conflicts of interest and set clear procurement guidelines, • and enhancing oversight and review to ensure all procurement processes are fully compliant with federal regulations. Our goal is to build a consistent, transparent procurement framework that safeguards both compliance and public trust. County Clerk: I was not the County Clerk in office at this time. To correct this issue, the County plans to develop a SOP to timely and accurately track and report on the SEFA. The SOP will be reviewed, adopted, and monitored by the Board of County Commissioners. Criteria: Compliance and Reporting Guidance, State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (8. Procurement, Suspension & Debarment.) reads as follows: Recipients are responsible for ensuring that any procurement using SLFRF funds, or payments under procurement contracts using such funds, are consistent with the procurement standards set forth in the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200.317 through 2 CFR 200.327, unless stated otherwise by Treasury. As outlined in FAQ 13.15, only a subset of the Uniform Guidance requirements at 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart D (Post Federal Award Requirements) applies to recipients’ use of funds in the revenue loss eligible use category. The procurement standards set forth in the Uniform Guidance at 2 CRF 200.317 through 2 CRF 200.327 are not included in FAQ 13.15’s list of applicable Subpart D requirements that apply to recipients’ use of funds in the revenue loss eligible use category. The Uniform Guidance establishes in 2 CFR 200.319 that all procurement transactions for property or services must be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition, consistent with standards outlined in 2 CFR 200.320, which allows for non-competitive procurements only in certain circumstances. Recipients must have and use documented procurement procedures that are consistent with the standards outlined in 2 CFR 200.317 through 2 CFR 200.320. In addition, the Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR 200.214, 2 CFR Part 180, and Treasury’s implementing regulations at 31 CFR Part 19, prohibit recipients from entering into contracts with suspended or debarred parties. The procurement standards outlined in the Uniform Guidance require an infrastructure for competitive bidding and contractor oversight, including maintaining written standards of conduct. Your organization must ensure adherence to all applicable local, State, and federal procurement laws and regulations. Further, 2 CFR § 200.319 Competition (d) reads as follows: The non-Federal entity must have written procedures for procurement transactions.
Information on the federal program: Federal awarding agency: United States Department of Education (ED) Federal Program: COVID-19 ? Education Stabilization Fund ? Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF), ALN 84.425 (F/L) Award year: 2021-2022 Criteria or specific requirement (including statutory, regulatory or other citation): 2 CFR 200.303 requires that a 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 and the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework?, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 2 CFR 200.318 (i) General Procurement Standards 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 200.319 (e) Competition states, ?the non-Federal entity must ensure that all prequalified lists of persons, firms, or products which are used in acquiring goods and services are current and include enough qualified sources to ensure maximum open and free competition. Also, the non-Federal entity must not preclude potential bidders from qualifying during the solicitation period.? The University of Incarnate Word?s Procurement and Bid Policy Version 1.0, Preferred Vendors, states ?Preferred vendors have been identified by the University?s Purchasing Department as providing fair and economical pricing on the goods or services that they provide; therefore, the University has decided to frequently utilize these vendors for purchasing needs. Goods or services purchased from a preferred vendor do not have to go through the bid process. A preferred vendor listing is maintained by the Purchasing Department which is available on the Policy website. Departments can submit justification to assign a vendor as preferred; however, the Director of Purchasing has ultimate discretion over the classification. All preferred vendors are formally reviewed annually by the Purchasing Department to assess whether they continue to provide the University with pricing that is within range or better than competitors. A sample of regularly purchased items is selected and the pricing from the preferred vendor is compared to the pricing of a few competitors to determine whether the preferred vendor is providing comparable pricing. Documentation of the annual pricing review is retained to justify the vendors being included on the preferred vendor listing.? Condition: The University did not maintain records for procurements sufficient to detail the history of procurement, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. Additionally, as required by the University?s Procurement and Bid Policy, the University did not maintain and provide documentation of the performance of an annual pricing review in order to assess whether preferred vendors continue to provide comparable pricing to other vendors. Questioned costs: $0 Context: EY selected and tested six procurements with expenditures totaling $1.1 million from a population of 23 procurements with expenditures totaling $2 million charged to the HEERF program during the year ended May 31, 2022. Of the six procurements tested: ? According to the University, two procurements were made from a preferred vendor included on a preferred vendor list; however, the history of the procurement was not documented, including the decision to use a preferred vendor for the procurement. Additionally, there was no evidence that the preferred vendor was reviewed to ensure comparable pricing. ? Three procurements were made from a single vendor using noncompetitive procurement ? sole source. A sole source justification memo was prepared; however, the memo did not address the history of the procurement and the reasons for lack of solicitation of other vendors in sufficient detail. ? According to the University, one procurement was made from a vendor using noncompetitive procurement ? public emergency; however, the history of the procurement and the emergency procurement were not documented. Effect: The University did not comply with the general procurement standards per the Uniform Guidance to maintain sufficient detail of the history of the procurement, including the rationale of the method of procurement. Additionally, if the University does not review and document the review of preferred vendors for comparable pricing on a periodic basis, noncompliance with federal competitive procurement requirements could occur. Cause: The University did not have effective internal controls and procedures in place to ensure the University maintained records for procurements sufficient to detail the history of procurement, including the rationale for the method of procurement and other required elements. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: Not Applicable. Recommendation: The University should retain written documentation for procurements documenting the history of the procurement prior to the procurement of goods or services, including, but not limited to, the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. The University should perform and maintain documentation of pricing reviews for preferred vendors to ensure continued comparable pricing and maximum open and free competition. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: Management agrees with the finding and has developed a plan to correct the finding.
Information on the federal program: Federal awarding agency: United States Department of Education (ED) Federal Program: COVID-19 ? Education Stabilization Fund ? Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF), ALN 84.425 (F/L) Award year: 2021-2022 Criteria or specific requirement (including statutory, regulatory or other citation): 2 CFR 200.303 requires that a 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 and the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework?, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 2 CFR 200.318 (i) General Procurement Standards 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 200.319 (e) Competition states, ?the non-Federal entity must ensure that all prequalified lists of persons, firms, or products which are used in acquiring goods and services are current and include enough qualified sources to ensure maximum open and free competition. Also, the non-Federal entity must not preclude potential bidders from qualifying during the solicitation period.? The University of Incarnate Word?s Procurement and Bid Policy Version 1.0, Preferred Vendors, states ?Preferred vendors have been identified by the University?s Purchasing Department as providing fair and economical pricing on the goods or services that they provide; therefore, the University has decided to frequently utilize these vendors for purchasing needs. Goods or services purchased from a preferred vendor do not have to go through the bid process. A preferred vendor listing is maintained by the Purchasing Department which is available on the Policy website. Departments can submit justification to assign a vendor as preferred; however, the Director of Purchasing has ultimate discretion over the classification. All preferred vendors are formally reviewed annually by the Purchasing Department to assess whether they continue to provide the University with pricing that is within range or better than competitors. A sample of regularly purchased items is selected and the pricing from the preferred vendor is compared to the pricing of a few competitors to determine whether the preferred vendor is providing comparable pricing. Documentation of the annual pricing review is retained to justify the vendors being included on the preferred vendor listing.? Condition: The University did not maintain records for procurements sufficient to detail the history of procurement, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. Additionally, as required by the University?s Procurement and Bid Policy, the University did not maintain and provide documentation of the performance of an annual pricing review in order to assess whether preferred vendors continue to provide comparable pricing to other vendors. Questioned costs: $0 Context: EY selected and tested six procurements with expenditures totaling $1.1 million from a population of 23 procurements with expenditures totaling $2 million charged to the HEERF program during the year ended May 31, 2022. Of the six procurements tested: ? According to the University, two procurements were made from a preferred vendor included on a preferred vendor list; however, the history of the procurement was not documented, including the decision to use a preferred vendor for the procurement. Additionally, there was no evidence that the preferred vendor was reviewed to ensure comparable pricing. ? Three procurements were made from a single vendor using noncompetitive procurement ? sole source. A sole source justification memo was prepared; however, the memo did not address the history of the procurement and the reasons for lack of solicitation of other vendors in sufficient detail. ? According to the University, one procurement was made from a vendor using noncompetitive procurement ? public emergency; however, the history of the procurement and the emergency procurement were not documented. Effect: The University did not comply with the general procurement standards per the Uniform Guidance to maintain sufficient detail of the history of the procurement, including the rationale of the method of procurement. Additionally, if the University does not review and document the review of preferred vendors for comparable pricing on a periodic basis, noncompliance with federal competitive procurement requirements could occur. Cause: The University did not have effective internal controls and procedures in place to ensure the University maintained records for procurements sufficient to detail the history of procurement, including the rationale for the method of procurement and other required elements. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: Not Applicable. Recommendation: The University should retain written documentation for procurements documenting the history of the procurement prior to the procurement of goods or services, including, but not limited to, the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. The University should perform and maintain documentation of pricing reviews for preferred vendors to ensure continued comparable pricing and maximum open and free competition. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: Management agrees with the finding and has developed a plan to correct the finding.
Information on the federal program: Federal awarding agency: United States Department of Education (ED) Federal Program: COVID-19 ? Education Stabilization Fund ? Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF), ALN 84.425 (F/L) Award year: 2021-2022 Criteria or specific requirement (including statutory, regulatory or other citation): 2 CFR 200.303 requires that a 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 and the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework?, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 2 CFR 200.318 (i) General Procurement Standards 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 200.319 (e) Competition states, ?the non-Federal entity must ensure that all prequalified lists of persons, firms, or products which are used in acquiring goods and services are current and include enough qualified sources to ensure maximum open and free competition. Also, the non-Federal entity must not preclude potential bidders from qualifying during the solicitation period.? The University of Incarnate Word?s Procurement and Bid Policy Version 1.0, Preferred Vendors, states ?Preferred vendors have been identified by the University?s Purchasing Department as providing fair and economical pricing on the goods or services that they provide; therefore, the University has decided to frequently utilize these vendors for purchasing needs. Goods or services purchased from a preferred vendor do not have to go through the bid process. A preferred vendor listing is maintained by the Purchasing Department which is available on the Policy website. Departments can submit justification to assign a vendor as preferred; however, the Director of Purchasing has ultimate discretion over the classification. All preferred vendors are formally reviewed annually by the Purchasing Department to assess whether they continue to provide the University with pricing that is within range or better than competitors. A sample of regularly purchased items is selected and the pricing from the preferred vendor is compared to the pricing of a few competitors to determine whether the preferred vendor is providing comparable pricing. Documentation of the annual pricing review is retained to justify the vendors being included on the preferred vendor listing.? Condition: The University did not maintain records for procurements sufficient to detail the history of procurement, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. Additionally, as required by the University?s Procurement and Bid Policy, the University did not maintain and provide documentation of the performance of an annual pricing review in order to assess whether preferred vendors continue to provide comparable pricing to other vendors. Questioned costs: $0 Context: EY selected and tested six procurements with expenditures totaling $1.1 million from a population of 23 procurements with expenditures totaling $2 million charged to the HEERF program during the year ended May 31, 2022. Of the six procurements tested: ? According to the University, two procurements were made from a preferred vendor included on a preferred vendor list; however, the history of the procurement was not documented, including the decision to use a preferred vendor for the procurement. Additionally, there was no evidence that the preferred vendor was reviewed to ensure comparable pricing. ? Three procurements were made from a single vendor using noncompetitive procurement ? sole source. A sole source justification memo was prepared; however, the memo did not address the history of the procurement and the reasons for lack of solicitation of other vendors in sufficient detail. ? According to the University, one procurement was made from a vendor using noncompetitive procurement ? public emergency; however, the history of the procurement and the emergency procurement were not documented. Effect: The University did not comply with the general procurement standards per the Uniform Guidance to maintain sufficient detail of the history of the procurement, including the rationale of the method of procurement. Additionally, if the University does not review and document the review of preferred vendors for comparable pricing on a periodic basis, noncompliance with federal competitive procurement requirements could occur. Cause: The University did not have effective internal controls and procedures in place to ensure the University maintained records for procurements sufficient to detail the history of procurement, including the rationale for the method of procurement and other required elements. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: Not Applicable. Recommendation: The University should retain written documentation for procurements documenting the history of the procurement prior to the procurement of goods or services, including, but not limited to, the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. The University should perform and maintain documentation of pricing reviews for preferred vendors to ensure continued comparable pricing and maximum open and free competition. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: Management agrees with the finding and has developed a plan to correct the finding.
Information on the federal program: Federal awarding agency: United States Department of Education (ED) Federal Program: COVID-19 ? Education Stabilization Fund ? Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF), ALN 84.425 (F/L) Award year: 2021-2022 Criteria or specific requirement (including statutory, regulatory or other citation): 2 CFR 200.303 requires that a 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 and the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework?, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 2 CFR 200.318 (i) General Procurement Standards 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 200.319 (e) Competition states, ?the non-Federal entity must ensure that all prequalified lists of persons, firms, or products which are used in acquiring goods and services are current and include enough qualified sources to ensure maximum open and free competition. Also, the non-Federal entity must not preclude potential bidders from qualifying during the solicitation period.? The University of Incarnate Word?s Procurement and Bid Policy Version 1.0, Preferred Vendors, states ?Preferred vendors have been identified by the University?s Purchasing Department as providing fair and economical pricing on the goods or services that they provide; therefore, the University has decided to frequently utilize these vendors for purchasing needs. Goods or services purchased from a preferred vendor do not have to go through the bid process. A preferred vendor listing is maintained by the Purchasing Department which is available on the Policy website. Departments can submit justification to assign a vendor as preferred; however, the Director of Purchasing has ultimate discretion over the classification. All preferred vendors are formally reviewed annually by the Purchasing Department to assess whether they continue to provide the University with pricing that is within range or better than competitors. A sample of regularly purchased items is selected and the pricing from the preferred vendor is compared to the pricing of a few competitors to determine whether the preferred vendor is providing comparable pricing. Documentation of the annual pricing review is retained to justify the vendors being included on the preferred vendor listing.? Condition: The University did not maintain records for procurements sufficient to detail the history of procurement, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. Additionally, as required by the University?s Procurement and Bid Policy, the University did not maintain and provide documentation of the performance of an annual pricing review in order to assess whether preferred vendors continue to provide comparable pricing to other vendors. Questioned costs: $0 Context: EY selected and tested six procurements with expenditures totaling $1.1 million from a population of 23 procurements with expenditures totaling $2 million charged to the HEERF program during the year ended May 31, 2022. Of the six procurements tested: ? According to the University, two procurements were made from a preferred vendor included on a preferred vendor list; however, the history of the procurement was not documented, including the decision to use a preferred vendor for the procurement. Additionally, there was no evidence that the preferred vendor was reviewed to ensure comparable pricing. ? Three procurements were made from a single vendor using noncompetitive procurement ? sole source. A sole source justification memo was prepared; however, the memo did not address the history of the procurement and the reasons for lack of solicitation of other vendors in sufficient detail. ? According to the University, one procurement was made from a vendor using noncompetitive procurement ? public emergency; however, the history of the procurement and the emergency procurement were not documented. Effect: The University did not comply with the general procurement standards per the Uniform Guidance to maintain sufficient detail of the history of the procurement, including the rationale of the method of procurement. Additionally, if the University does not review and document the review of preferred vendors for comparable pricing on a periodic basis, noncompliance with federal competitive procurement requirements could occur. Cause: The University did not have effective internal controls and procedures in place to ensure the University maintained records for procurements sufficient to detail the history of procurement, including the rationale for the method of procurement and other required elements. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: Not Applicable. Recommendation: The University should retain written documentation for procurements documenting the history of the procurement prior to the procurement of goods or services, including, but not limited to, the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. The University should perform and maintain documentation of pricing reviews for preferred vendors to ensure continued comparable pricing and maximum open and free competition. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: Management agrees with the finding and has developed a plan to correct the finding.
2021-002 Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Grantor: U.S. Department of Treasury/U.S. Department of Justice Award Name: Equitable Sharing Program Award Year: 01/01/21 – 12/31/21 CFDA Numbers: 21.016 / 16.922 Criteria OMB Uniform Guidance §200.319 states that all procurement transactions for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award must be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition consistent with the standards of this section and §200.320, which states that 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. Condition During our procurement testing procedures, we selected 24 items from the vendor history activity report and traced them to procurement and bidding procedures. Through our testing, we identified two purchases made using Federal funds to purchase vehicles, that were not publicly advertised or made through a non-competitive procurement process. Both of the items exceeded the public bidding threshold but did not follow formal procurements procedures. Cause Due to the global pandemic, the availability of vehicles has become limited. The Borough police department needed specific vehicles for their operations and made the purchases without using formal procurement procedures to avoid the risk of losing the opportunity to purchase the vehicles. Effect The procurement procedures were not followed as required, therefore, Federally funded purchases bypassed procurement regulations. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation The Borough should follow procurement policy and publicly advertise for sealed bids on contracts or purchases over $44,000, documenting the significant history of the procurement in the contract file. Management’s View and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included under separate cover and filed with the State of New Jersey.
#2021-007 – Significant Deficiency – Special Tests Criteria Uniform Guidance (UG) requires non-Federal entities that receive grant funding to have written policies in the following areas: Internal Controls (2CFR 200.303) Travel (2CFR 200.474) Financial Management and Accounting which includes Cash Management and Allowability (2CFR 200.302) Personnel Compensation – Time and Effort Reporting (2CFR 200.430(i)) Conflict of Interest/Disclosures (2CFR 200.318) Procurement (2CFR 200.319) Condition During the audit we noted that the Organization does not have written policies in place over these areas in accordance with Uniform Guidance. Cause The Organization was not aware of the requirement to have these written policies in place. Effect The potential effect of not having these policies in place is that Organization’s expenses are not in accordance with UGG. Questioned Costs None Perspective Information No policies or procedures were noted that are in accordance with Uniform Guidance. As a response to the prior year finding, the Organization noted that they will add policies to the fiscal manual for future compliance. Identification as a repeat finding A similar issue was noted in prior year finding #2020-007. Recommendation We recommend that the Organization update the fiscal manual to include policies that are compliant with Uniform Guidance. View of responsible officials and planned corrective action Policies will be placed and adopted by the agency that meet the UG code. These policies will be placed in the fiscal manual. The fiscal manual will be created by using federal guidelines and by using the DDAP fiscal manual as guidance.
#2021-007 – Significant Deficiency – Special Tests Criteria Uniform Guidance (UG) requires non-Federal entities that receive grant funding to have written policies in the following areas: Internal Controls (2CFR 200.303) Travel (2CFR 200.474) Financial Management and Accounting which includes Cash Management and Allowability (2CFR 200.302) Personnel Compensation – Time and Effort Reporting (2CFR 200.430(i)) Conflict of Interest/Disclosures (2CFR 200.318) Procurement (2CFR 200.319) Condition During the audit we noted that the Organization does not have written policies in place over these areas in accordance with Uniform Guidance. Cause The Organization was not aware of the requirement to have these written policies in place. Effect The potential effect of not having these policies in place is that Organization’s expenses are not in accordance with UGG. Questioned Costs None Perspective Information No policies or procedures were noted that are in accordance with Uniform Guidance. As a response to the prior year finding, the Organization noted that they will add policies to the fiscal manual for future compliance. Identification as a repeat finding A similar issue was noted in prior year finding #2020-007. Recommendation We recommend that the Organization update the fiscal manual to include policies that are compliant with Uniform Guidance. View of responsible officials and planned corrective action Policies will be placed and adopted by the agency that meet the UG code. These policies will be placed in the fiscal manual. The fiscal manual will be created by using federal guidelines and by using the DDAP fiscal manual as guidance.
2021-002 Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Grantor: U.S. Department of Treasury/U.S. Department of Justice Award Name: Equitable Sharing Program Award Year: 01/01/21 – 12/31/21 CFDA Numbers: 21.016 / 16.922 Criteria OMB Uniform Guidance §200.319 states that all procurement transactions for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award must be conducted in a manner providing full and open competition consistent with the standards of this section and §200.320, which states that 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. Condition During our procurement testing procedures, we selected 24 items from the vendor history activity report and traced them to procurement and bidding procedures. Through our testing, we identified two purchases made using Federal funds to purchase vehicles, that were not publicly advertised or made through a non-competitive procurement process. Both of the items exceeded the public bidding threshold but did not follow formal procurements procedures. Cause Due to the global pandemic, the availability of vehicles has become limited. The Borough police department needed specific vehicles for their operations and made the purchases without using formal procurement procedures to avoid the risk of losing the opportunity to purchase the vehicles. Effect The procurement procedures were not followed as required, therefore, Federally funded purchases bypassed procurement regulations. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation The Borough should follow procurement policy and publicly advertise for sealed bids on contracts or purchases over $44,000, documenting the significant history of the procurement in the contract file. Management’s View and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included under separate cover and filed with the State of New Jersey.
#2021-007 – Significant Deficiency – Special Tests Criteria Uniform Guidance (UG) requires non-Federal entities that receive grant funding to have written policies in the following areas: Internal Controls (2CFR 200.303) Travel (2CFR 200.474) Financial Management and Accounting which includes Cash Management and Allowability (2CFR 200.302) Personnel Compensation – Time and Effort Reporting (2CFR 200.430(i)) Conflict of Interest/Disclosures (2CFR 200.318) Procurement (2CFR 200.319) Condition During the audit we noted that the Organization does not have written policies in place over these areas in accordance with Uniform Guidance. Cause The Organization was not aware of the requirement to have these written policies in place. Effect The potential effect of not having these policies in place is that Organization’s expenses are not in accordance with UGG. Questioned Costs None Perspective Information No policies or procedures were noted that are in accordance with Uniform Guidance. As a response to the prior year finding, the Organization noted that they will add policies to the fiscal manual for future compliance. Identification as a repeat finding A similar issue was noted in prior year finding #2020-007. Recommendation We recommend that the Organization update the fiscal manual to include policies that are compliant with Uniform Guidance. View of responsible officials and planned corrective action Policies will be placed and adopted by the agency that meet the UG code. These policies will be placed in the fiscal manual. The fiscal manual will be created by using federal guidelines and by using the DDAP fiscal manual as guidance.
#2021-007 – Significant Deficiency – Special Tests Criteria Uniform Guidance (UG) requires non-Federal entities that receive grant funding to have written policies in the following areas: Internal Controls (2CFR 200.303) Travel (2CFR 200.474) Financial Management and Accounting which includes Cash Management and Allowability (2CFR 200.302) Personnel Compensation – Time and Effort Reporting (2CFR 200.430(i)) Conflict of Interest/Disclosures (2CFR 200.318) Procurement (2CFR 200.319) Condition During the audit we noted that the Organization does not have written policies in place over these areas in accordance with Uniform Guidance. Cause The Organization was not aware of the requirement to have these written policies in place. Effect The potential effect of not having these policies in place is that Organization’s expenses are not in accordance with UGG. Questioned Costs None Perspective Information No policies or procedures were noted that are in accordance with Uniform Guidance. As a response to the prior year finding, the Organization noted that they will add policies to the fiscal manual for future compliance. Identification as a repeat finding A similar issue was noted in prior year finding #2020-007. Recommendation We recommend that the Organization update the fiscal manual to include policies that are compliant with Uniform Guidance. View of responsible officials and planned corrective action Policies will be placed and adopted by the agency that meet the UG code. These policies will be placed in the fiscal manual. The fiscal manual will be created by using federal guidelines and by using the DDAP fiscal manual as guidance.
Finding 2018-002 – Lack of Policies/Procedures & Documentation Related to Procurement/Suspension and Debarment (Material Weakness in Internal Controls over Compliance – Federal Program CFDA 10.766/10.780 Community Facilities Loans and Grants Cluster) Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.318 requires that the auditee must have and use documented procurement procedures for the purchase/acquisition of any property or services under a Federal award. These must include written standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest, consideration of the most economical purchase, rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contractors including whether they have been barred from doing business with the federal government, and the basis for the contract price. Also, £200.319 requires all procurement transactions be conducted in a manner that provides full and open competition, and develop specific procurement methods in compliance with £200.320, “Methods of procurement to be followed.” Condition and Context: The Organization has no documented procedures over the procurement process, contractor selection, or established methods in place to assure free and open competition as required by the Procurement Standards contained in the Uniform Guidance. Cause: Lack of understanding relating to the requirements of federal awards and loans considered to be financial assistance under the Uniform Guidance. Effect: Lack of documented controls over the Organization’s procurement process creates a material weakness in internal controls over compliance. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should become familiar with the Uniform Guidance, and in particular, the application section on Procurement, and seek additional training for those staff involved in all phases of the procurement process. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: We are creating a job description for a financial analyst. Part of this role will be to implement the recommendation, including development of bid specifications, participation in the selection of supplies and contractors, and monitoring/documenting results.
Finding 2018-002 – Lack of Policies/Procedures & Documentation Related to Procurement/Suspension and Debarment (Material Weakness in Internal Controls over Compliance – Federal Program CFDA 10.766/10.780 Community Facilities Loans and Grants Cluster) Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.318 requires that the auditee must have and use documented procurement procedures for the purchase/acquisition of any property or services under a Federal award. These must include written standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest, consideration of the most economical purchase, rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contractors including whether they have been barred from doing business with the federal government, and the basis for the contract price. Also, £200.319 requires all procurement transactions be conducted in a manner that provides full and open competition, and develop specific procurement methods in compliance with £200.320, “Methods of procurement to be followed.” Condition and Context: The Organization has no documented procedures over the procurement process, contractor selection, or established methods in place to assure free and open competition as required by the Procurement Standards contained in the Uniform Guidance. Cause: Lack of understanding relating to the requirements of federal awards and loans considered to be financial assistance under the Uniform Guidance. Effect: Lack of documented controls over the Organization’s procurement process creates a material weakness in internal controls over compliance. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should become familiar with the Uniform Guidance, and in particular, the application section on Procurement, and seek additional training for those staff involved in all phases of the procurement process. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: We are creating a job description for a financial analyst. Part of this role will be to implement the recommendation, including development of bid specifications, participation in the selection of supplies and contractors, and monitoring/documenting results.