Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name -93.233/93.837, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Research and Development Cluster 93.323, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (ELC) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - 93.233 - R01HL142116; 93.837 - U01HL146245 93.323 - 22680258J; 32680012K Pass-through Entity - 93.233 N/A (direct); 93.837 N/A (direct) 93.323 Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), nonfederal entities must establish and maintain effective internal controls over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal 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 the guidance in Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, or the Internal Control Framework, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Per 2 CFR 200.318(a), the nonfederal entity must have and use documented procedures, consistent with state, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a federal award or subaward. The nonfederal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§200.317 through 200.327. Per 2 CFR 200.318(i), the nonfederal 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. Per 2 CFR 200.324(a), the nonfederal entity must perform a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement action in excess of the SAT, including contract modifications. The method and degree of analysis is dependent upon the facts surrounding the particular procurement situation; but, as a starting point, the nonfederal entity must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition - Controls were not sufficient to establish written policies and procedures surrounding procured contracts and to ensure that the history of procurement decisions was documented, as required by 2 CFR 200. Questioned Costs - Research and Development Cluster - unknown ELC - unknown Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - N/A Context - Research and Development Cluster - For the four contracts tested, management did not maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement, rationale for the method of procurement, selection of the contract type, or basis of the contract price. Additionally, for the largest of the four contracts with activity of approximately $375,000, which is above the SAT established by FAR, management did not document its rationale for limiting competition, nor was management able to provide evidence that a cost-price analysis was performed. Finally, management has not formally documented an appropriate micropurchase or SAT threshold. ELC - For the three of the four contracts tested that were procured under noncompetitive means, management did not maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement, rationale for the method of procurement, selection of the contract type, or basis of the contract price. Further, for three out of four contracts tested under the Research and Development Cluster and all four contracts tested under ELC, management was unable to provide evidence that contractors were checked for suspension and debarment in advance of entering into a covered transaction. Because there was evidence that these contractors were not suspended or debarred, no questioned costs related to this noncompliance were identified. Cause and Effect - A lack of formal procurement policies and procedures, internally established procurement thresholds, or records in support of procurement decisions could result in material noncompliance with federal procurement standards. Recommendation - We recommend that management formalize procurement policies and procedures to demonstrate how the Institute will achieve compliance with standards identified in §§200.317 through 200.327. Additionally, we recommend management retain documented evidence that its policies and procedures were followed to ensure compliance with procurement standards. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan – Management agrees with the recommendation and will review the relevant guidance to ensure compliance. Necessary revisions will be made to the existing procurement policies and procedures in a timely manner to ensure that procurement decisions are documented, as required by 2 CFR Part 200.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name -93.233/93.837, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Research and Development Cluster 93.323, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (ELC) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - 93.233 - R01HL142116; 93.837 - U01HL146245 93.323 - 22680258J; 32680012K Pass-through Entity - 93.233 N/A (direct); 93.837 N/A (direct) 93.323 Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), nonfederal entities must establish and maintain effective internal controls over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal 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 the guidance in Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, or the Internal Control Framework, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Per 2 CFR 200.318(a), the nonfederal entity must have and use documented procedures, consistent with state, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a federal award or subaward. The nonfederal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§200.317 through 200.327. Per 2 CFR 200.318(i), the nonfederal 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. Per 2 CFR 200.324(a), the nonfederal entity must perform a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement action in excess of the SAT, including contract modifications. The method and degree of analysis is dependent upon the facts surrounding the particular procurement situation; but, as a starting point, the nonfederal entity must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition - Controls were not sufficient to establish written policies and procedures surrounding procured contracts and to ensure that the history of procurement decisions was documented, as required by 2 CFR 200. Questioned Costs - Research and Development Cluster - unknown ELC - unknown Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - N/A Context - Research and Development Cluster - For the four contracts tested, management did not maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement, rationale for the method of procurement, selection of the contract type, or basis of the contract price. Additionally, for the largest of the four contracts with activity of approximately $375,000, which is above the SAT established by FAR, management did not document its rationale for limiting competition, nor was management able to provide evidence that a cost-price analysis was performed. Finally, management has not formally documented an appropriate micropurchase or SAT threshold. ELC - For the three of the four contracts tested that were procured under noncompetitive means, management did not maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement, rationale for the method of procurement, selection of the contract type, or basis of the contract price. Further, for three out of four contracts tested under the Research and Development Cluster and all four contracts tested under ELC, management was unable to provide evidence that contractors were checked for suspension and debarment in advance of entering into a covered transaction. Because there was evidence that these contractors were not suspended or debarred, no questioned costs related to this noncompliance were identified. Cause and Effect - A lack of formal procurement policies and procedures, internally established procurement thresholds, or records in support of procurement decisions could result in material noncompliance with federal procurement standards. Recommendation - We recommend that management formalize procurement policies and procedures to demonstrate how the Institute will achieve compliance with standards identified in §§200.317 through 200.327. Additionally, we recommend management retain documented evidence that its policies and procedures were followed to ensure compliance with procurement standards. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan – Management agrees with the recommendation and will review the relevant guidance to ensure compliance. Necessary revisions will be made to the existing procurement policies and procedures in a timely manner to ensure that procurement decisions are documented, as required by 2 CFR Part 200.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name -93.233/93.837, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Research and Development Cluster 93.323, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (ELC) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - 93.233 - R01HL142116; 93.837 - U01HL146245 93.323 - 22680258J; 32680012K Pass-through Entity - 93.233 N/A (direct); 93.837 N/A (direct) 93.323 Illinois Department of Public Health (IDPH) Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), nonfederal entities must establish and maintain effective internal controls over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal 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 the guidance in Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government, issued by the Comptroller General of the United States, or the Internal Control Framework, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Per 2 CFR 200.318(a), the nonfederal entity must have and use documented procedures, consistent with state, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a federal award or subaward. The nonfederal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§200.317 through 200.327. Per 2 CFR 200.318(i), the nonfederal 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. Per 2 CFR 200.324(a), the nonfederal entity must perform a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement action in excess of the SAT, including contract modifications. The method and degree of analysis is dependent upon the facts surrounding the particular procurement situation; but, as a starting point, the nonfederal entity must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition - Controls were not sufficient to establish written policies and procedures surrounding procured contracts and to ensure that the history of procurement decisions was documented, as required by 2 CFR 200. Questioned Costs - Research and Development Cluster - unknown ELC - unknown Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - N/A Context - Research and Development Cluster - For the four contracts tested, management did not maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement, rationale for the method of procurement, selection of the contract type, or basis of the contract price. Additionally, for the largest of the four contracts with activity of approximately $375,000, which is above the SAT established by FAR, management did not document its rationale for limiting competition, nor was management able to provide evidence that a cost-price analysis was performed. Finally, management has not formally documented an appropriate micropurchase or SAT threshold. ELC - For the three of the four contracts tested that were procured under noncompetitive means, management did not maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement, rationale for the method of procurement, selection of the contract type, or basis of the contract price. Further, for three out of four contracts tested under the Research and Development Cluster and all four contracts tested under ELC, management was unable to provide evidence that contractors were checked for suspension and debarment in advance of entering into a covered transaction. Because there was evidence that these contractors were not suspended or debarred, no questioned costs related to this noncompliance were identified. Cause and Effect - A lack of formal procurement policies and procedures, internally established procurement thresholds, or records in support of procurement decisions could result in material noncompliance with federal procurement standards. Recommendation - We recommend that management formalize procurement policies and procedures to demonstrate how the Institute will achieve compliance with standards identified in §§200.317 through 200.327. Additionally, we recommend management retain documented evidence that its policies and procedures were followed to ensure compliance with procurement standards. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan – Management agrees with the recommendation and will review the relevant guidance to ensure compliance. Necessary revisions will be made to the existing procurement policies and procedures in a timely manner to ensure that procurement decisions are documented, as required by 2 CFR Part 200.
Assistance Listing, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 21.027 - COVID - 19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Award Identification Number and Year - SLFRP0126 Pass through Entity - U.S. Department of Treasury Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - 2 CFR 200.320 and 200.324 outlines the auditee responsibility to utilize the appropriate procurement method and comply with all related requirements of that selected procurement methodology. Also, 2 CFR 180.300 outlines the auditee responsibility related to suspension and debarment requirements for vendors with whom an entity contracts. Condition - The School District did not have sufficient controls in place to ensure compliance with its procurement policy and that appropriate documentation is retained regarding the procurement methodology chosen and support for compliance with the suspension and debarment requirements. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - N/A Context - Of the sample of 2 contracts procured this year that we selected for testing, 2 did not have the required support for the procurement method selected based on federal guidelines and the School District's procurement policy. Additionally, the 2 contracts selected for suspension and debarment testing did not have any documentation as it related to suspension and debarment. Cause and Effect - The School District did not retain support to show it obtained price quotes, as required by the small purchases provision; had the appropriate rationale, as required by the noncompetitive solicitation provision; or had support for proposals submitted, as required by the purchases over $250,000 provision. Support was not retained for 2 of the 2 samples selected during procurement testing; therefore, procurement methodology was not supported. Additionally, none of the 2 samples selected for suspension and debarment testing had the required support retained. Recommendation - We recommend the School District implement internal control procedures to ensure that procurement policy is followed and the proper documentation is kept in the procurement files to support any and all procurement decisions in accordance with the purchasing policy and federal regulations. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions - This finding was due to the District having turnover among key personnel in the grants area, as well as non adherence to policies and procedures related to grant records, grant accounting, and year end close processes. The District will work with the Materials and Procurement department to ensure policies and procedures are updated and staff is trained. Prior to awarding any contract, District staff will search the federal Excluded Parties List System to determine that the contractor is not suspended or debarred. Documentation of this search will be maintained in the grant procurement file.
Finding 2024-001: Procurement Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through agency: Pennsylvania Department of Education Assistance Listing Number: 84.425 Education Stabilization Fund; 84.027 IDEA Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that non-federal entities must have and use documented procurement procedures consistent with laws and regulations and the standards for the acquisition of property or services under a federal award or subaward in accordance with 2 CFR 200.318. The Uniform Guidance requires that non-federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement and adherence to related compliance requirements. Records should 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 200.318(i) Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply 2 CFR 200.320(c): The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold: The item is available only from a single source; The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; 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 After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. adequately document costs in accordance with 2 CFR 200.403(g). The Non-Federal entity must perform a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement action in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold including contract modifications. The method and degree of analysis is dependent on the facts surrounding the particular procurement situation, but as a starting point, the non-Federal entity must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. 2 CFR 200.324(a). Per PDE and Pennsylvania Bulletin, the Entity must perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Condition: The District did not follow the appropriate procedures to comply with Uniform Grant Guidance. During our audits and PDE’s monitoring review completed in fiscal year 2023-2024, the ESSER Monitoring Team and we noted the following Procurement Findings: The School District was unable to provide purchase orders for several services purchased with Federal funds. The School District did not document its rationale for noncompetitive procurement. The School District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Procurement files for 2 vendors, which exceed $10,000 but not $22,500 for goods and $10,000 but not $250,000 for services, did not have the accompanying three price or rate quotations. The School District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Vendor contracts did not contain the necessary contract provisions The ESSER Monitoring Team was unable to obtain and review sufficient documentation to verify that the procurement was competitively performed for 1 vendor, such as proof of advertisement, request for proposal, bid evaluation, and award letter for procurement of the following vendor Context: During testing, it was noted that the District had entered into a lease agreement in 2017 to acquire computer equipment. The equipment was acquired through COSTARS, a cooperative purchasing program. While purchases through COSTARS meet the cooperative purchase requirement for local government purchasing under 62 Pa.C.S. section 1902, they do not meet the more stringent requirements of the Uniform Grant Guidance. Subsequently, the District decided to budget for and pay for this lease agreement in the 2021-2022 school year under the Education Stabilization Fund. In using federal funds to pay for the lease agreement, the District inadvertently did not follow its procurement policy. While the school district developed a plan to correct these procedures, it was not fully implemented until the 2023-2024 school year. Cause: Non-compliance with Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements. Effect: The District did not follow its procurement policy and ultimately did not comply with the standards of the Uniform Grant Guidance. Questioned Cost: None Identification of Repeat Finding: Yes Recommendation: The District must implement procedures to fully comply with Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements. View of Responsible Officials: The District will require all payments to have either a purchase order or request for payment form completed. The Accounts Payable Coordinator is responsible for ensuring the form is signed for all disbursements. For the particular item cited by our monitors the Superintendent and Business Manager signed off on the invoice instead of a request for payment form. The District Accountant / Business Office Manager discussed with the Accounts Payable Coordinator that going forward this is insufficient. All payments must have either a purchase order or request for payment form. The District Accountant / Business Office Manager reviews backup documentation for check disbursements. During their review if any payments are discovered to be missing a purchase order or request for payment form, he will notify the Accounts Payable Coordinator to complete the form. This is effective immediately. The District has also reviewed the applicable Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements and has developed an electronic procurement process that all staff member making the purchase with federal funds, must complete a form prior to the procurement being made. Then the Business Manager approves the form. There is a box to check if the procurement is a sole source. If this is checked the Business Manager will require justification. This process was presented by the Business Office to Leadership Personnel on 5/9/24 and is effective now.
Finding 2024-001: Procurement Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through agency: Pennsylvania Department of Education Assistance Listing Number: 84.425 Education Stabilization Fund; 84.027 IDEA Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that non-federal entities must have and use documented procurement procedures consistent with laws and regulations and the standards for the acquisition of property or services under a federal award or subaward in accordance with 2 CFR 200.318. The Uniform Guidance requires that non-federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement and adherence to related compliance requirements. Records should 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 200.318(i) Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply 2 CFR 200.320(c): The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold: The item is available only from a single source; The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; 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 After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. adequately document costs in accordance with 2 CFR 200.403(g). The Non-Federal entity must perform a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement action in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold including contract modifications. The method and degree of analysis is dependent on the facts surrounding the particular procurement situation, but as a starting point, the non-Federal entity must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. 2 CFR 200.324(a). Per PDE and Pennsylvania Bulletin, the Entity must perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Condition: The District did not follow the appropriate procedures to comply with Uniform Grant Guidance. During our audits and PDE’s monitoring review completed in fiscal year 2023-2024, the ESSER Monitoring Team and we noted the following Procurement Findings: The School District was unable to provide purchase orders for several services purchased with Federal funds. The School District did not document its rationale for noncompetitive procurement. The School District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Procurement files for 2 vendors, which exceed $10,000 but not $22,500 for goods and $10,000 but not $250,000 for services, did not have the accompanying three price or rate quotations. The School District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Vendor contracts did not contain the necessary contract provisions The ESSER Monitoring Team was unable to obtain and review sufficient documentation to verify that the procurement was competitively performed for 1 vendor, such as proof of advertisement, request for proposal, bid evaluation, and award letter for procurement of the following vendor Context: During testing, it was noted that the District had entered into a lease agreement in 2017 to acquire computer equipment. The equipment was acquired through COSTARS, a cooperative purchasing program. While purchases through COSTARS meet the cooperative purchase requirement for local government purchasing under 62 Pa.C.S. section 1902, they do not meet the more stringent requirements of the Uniform Grant Guidance. Subsequently, the District decided to budget for and pay for this lease agreement in the 2021-2022 school year under the Education Stabilization Fund. In using federal funds to pay for the lease agreement, the District inadvertently did not follow its procurement policy. While the school district developed a plan to correct these procedures, it was not fully implemented until the 2023-2024 school year. Cause: Non-compliance with Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements. Effect: The District did not follow its procurement policy and ultimately did not comply with the standards of the Uniform Grant Guidance. Questioned Cost: None Identification of Repeat Finding: Yes Recommendation: The District must implement procedures to fully comply with Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements. View of Responsible Officials: The District will require all payments to have either a purchase order or request for payment form completed. The Accounts Payable Coordinator is responsible for ensuring the form is signed for all disbursements. For the particular item cited by our monitors the Superintendent and Business Manager signed off on the invoice instead of a request for payment form. The District Accountant / Business Office Manager discussed with the Accounts Payable Coordinator that going forward this is insufficient. All payments must have either a purchase order or request for payment form. The District Accountant / Business Office Manager reviews backup documentation for check disbursements. During their review if any payments are discovered to be missing a purchase order or request for payment form, he will notify the Accounts Payable Coordinator to complete the form. This is effective immediately. The District has also reviewed the applicable Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements and has developed an electronic procurement process that all staff member making the purchase with federal funds, must complete a form prior to the procurement being made. Then the Business Manager approves the form. There is a box to check if the procurement is a sole source. If this is checked the Business Manager will require justification. This process was presented by the Business Office to Leadership Personnel on 5/9/24 and is effective now.
Finding 2024-001: Procurement Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through agency: Pennsylvania Department of Education Assistance Listing Number: 84.425 Education Stabilization Fund; 84.027 IDEA Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that non-federal entities must have and use documented procurement procedures consistent with laws and regulations and the standards for the acquisition of property or services under a federal award or subaward in accordance with 2 CFR 200.318. The Uniform Guidance requires that non-federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement and adherence to related compliance requirements. Records should 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 200.318(i) Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply 2 CFR 200.320(c): The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold: The item is available only from a single source; The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; 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 After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. adequately document costs in accordance with 2 CFR 200.403(g). The Non-Federal entity must perform a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement action in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold including contract modifications. The method and degree of analysis is dependent on the facts surrounding the particular procurement situation, but as a starting point, the non-Federal entity must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. 2 CFR 200.324(a). Per PDE and Pennsylvania Bulletin, the Entity must perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Condition: The District did not follow the appropriate procedures to comply with Uniform Grant Guidance. During our audits and PDE’s monitoring review completed in fiscal year 2023-2024, the ESSER Monitoring Team and we noted the following Procurement Findings: The School District was unable to provide purchase orders for several services purchased with Federal funds. The School District did not document its rationale for noncompetitive procurement. The School District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Procurement files for 2 vendors, which exceed $10,000 but not $22,500 for goods and $10,000 but not $250,000 for services, did not have the accompanying three price or rate quotations. The School District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Vendor contracts did not contain the necessary contract provisions The ESSER Monitoring Team was unable to obtain and review sufficient documentation to verify that the procurement was competitively performed for 1 vendor, such as proof of advertisement, request for proposal, bid evaluation, and award letter for procurement of the following vendor Context: During testing, it was noted that the District had entered into a lease agreement in 2017 to acquire computer equipment. The equipment was acquired through COSTARS, a cooperative purchasing program. While purchases through COSTARS meet the cooperative purchase requirement for local government purchasing under 62 Pa.C.S. section 1902, they do not meet the more stringent requirements of the Uniform Grant Guidance. Subsequently, the District decided to budget for and pay for this lease agreement in the 2021-2022 school year under the Education Stabilization Fund. In using federal funds to pay for the lease agreement, the District inadvertently did not follow its procurement policy. While the school district developed a plan to correct these procedures, it was not fully implemented until the 2023-2024 school year. Cause: Non-compliance with Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements. Effect: The District did not follow its procurement policy and ultimately did not comply with the standards of the Uniform Grant Guidance. Questioned Cost: None Identification of Repeat Finding: Yes Recommendation: The District must implement procedures to fully comply with Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements. View of Responsible Officials: The District will require all payments to have either a purchase order or request for payment form completed. The Accounts Payable Coordinator is responsible for ensuring the form is signed for all disbursements. For the particular item cited by our monitors the Superintendent and Business Manager signed off on the invoice instead of a request for payment form. The District Accountant / Business Office Manager discussed with the Accounts Payable Coordinator that going forward this is insufficient. All payments must have either a purchase order or request for payment form. The District Accountant / Business Office Manager reviews backup documentation for check disbursements. During their review if any payments are discovered to be missing a purchase order or request for payment form, he will notify the Accounts Payable Coordinator to complete the form. This is effective immediately. The District has also reviewed the applicable Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements and has developed an electronic procurement process that all staff member making the purchase with federal funds, must complete a form prior to the procurement being made. Then the Business Manager approves the form. There is a box to check if the procurement is a sole source. If this is checked the Business Manager will require justification. This process was presented by the Business Office to Leadership Personnel on 5/9/24 and is effective now.
Finding 2024-001: Procurement Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through agency: Pennsylvania Department of Education Assistance Listing Number: 84.425 Education Stabilization Fund; 84.027 IDEA Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that non-federal entities must have and use documented procurement procedures consistent with laws and regulations and the standards for the acquisition of property or services under a federal award or subaward in accordance with 2 CFR 200.318. The Uniform Guidance requires that non-federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement and adherence to related compliance requirements. Records should 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 200.318(i) Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply 2 CFR 200.320(c): The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold: The item is available only from a single source; The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; 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 After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. adequately document costs in accordance with 2 CFR 200.403(g). The Non-Federal entity must perform a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement action in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold including contract modifications. The method and degree of analysis is dependent on the facts surrounding the particular procurement situation, but as a starting point, the non-Federal entity must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. 2 CFR 200.324(a). Per PDE and Pennsylvania Bulletin, the Entity must perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Condition: The District did not follow the appropriate procedures to comply with Uniform Grant Guidance. During our audits and PDE’s monitoring review completed in fiscal year 2023-2024, the ESSER Monitoring Team and we noted the following Procurement Findings: The School District was unable to provide purchase orders for several services purchased with Federal funds. The School District did not document its rationale for noncompetitive procurement. The School District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Procurement files for 2 vendors, which exceed $10,000 but not $22,500 for goods and $10,000 but not $250,000 for services, did not have the accompanying three price or rate quotations. The School District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Vendor contracts did not contain the necessary contract provisions The ESSER Monitoring Team was unable to obtain and review sufficient documentation to verify that the procurement was competitively performed for 1 vendor, such as proof of advertisement, request for proposal, bid evaluation, and award letter for procurement of the following vendor Context: During testing, it was noted that the District had entered into a lease agreement in 2017 to acquire computer equipment. The equipment was acquired through COSTARS, a cooperative purchasing program. While purchases through COSTARS meet the cooperative purchase requirement for local government purchasing under 62 Pa.C.S. section 1902, they do not meet the more stringent requirements of the Uniform Grant Guidance. Subsequently, the District decided to budget for and pay for this lease agreement in the 2021-2022 school year under the Education Stabilization Fund. In using federal funds to pay for the lease agreement, the District inadvertently did not follow its procurement policy. While the school district developed a plan to correct these procedures, it was not fully implemented until the 2023-2024 school year. Cause: Non-compliance with Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements. Effect: The District did not follow its procurement policy and ultimately did not comply with the standards of the Uniform Grant Guidance. Questioned Cost: None Identification of Repeat Finding: Yes Recommendation: The District must implement procedures to fully comply with Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements. View of Responsible Officials: The District will require all payments to have either a purchase order or request for payment form completed. The Accounts Payable Coordinator is responsible for ensuring the form is signed for all disbursements. For the particular item cited by our monitors the Superintendent and Business Manager signed off on the invoice instead of a request for payment form. The District Accountant / Business Office Manager discussed with the Accounts Payable Coordinator that going forward this is insufficient. All payments must have either a purchase order or request for payment form. The District Accountant / Business Office Manager reviews backup documentation for check disbursements. During their review if any payments are discovered to be missing a purchase order or request for payment form, he will notify the Accounts Payable Coordinator to complete the form. This is effective immediately. The District has also reviewed the applicable Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements and has developed an electronic procurement process that all staff member making the purchase with federal funds, must complete a form prior to the procurement being made. Then the Business Manager approves the form. There is a box to check if the procurement is a sole source. If this is checked the Business Manager will require justification. This process was presented by the Business Office to Leadership Personnel on 5/9/24 and is effective now.
Finding 2024-001: Procurement Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through agency: Pennsylvania Department of Education Assistance Listing Number: 84.425 Education Stabilization Fund; 84.027 IDEA Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that non-federal entities must have and use documented procurement procedures consistent with laws and regulations and the standards for the acquisition of property or services under a federal award or subaward in accordance with 2 CFR 200.318. The Uniform Guidance requires that non-federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement and adherence to related compliance requirements. Records should 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 200.318(i) Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply 2 CFR 200.320(c): The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold: The item is available only from a single source; The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; 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 After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. adequately document costs in accordance with 2 CFR 200.403(g). The Non-Federal entity must perform a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement action in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold including contract modifications. The method and degree of analysis is dependent on the facts surrounding the particular procurement situation, but as a starting point, the non-Federal entity must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. 2 CFR 200.324(a). Per PDE and Pennsylvania Bulletin, the Entity must perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Condition: The District did not follow the appropriate procedures to comply with Uniform Grant Guidance. During our audits and PDE’s monitoring review completed in fiscal year 2023-2024, the ESSER Monitoring Team and we noted the following Procurement Findings: The School District was unable to provide purchase orders for several services purchased with Federal funds. The School District did not document its rationale for noncompetitive procurement. The School District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Procurement files for 2 vendors, which exceed $10,000 but not $22,500 for goods and $10,000 but not $250,000 for services, did not have the accompanying three price or rate quotations. The School District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Vendor contracts did not contain the necessary contract provisions The ESSER Monitoring Team was unable to obtain and review sufficient documentation to verify that the procurement was competitively performed for 1 vendor, such as proof of advertisement, request for proposal, bid evaluation, and award letter for procurement of the following vendor Context: During testing, it was noted that the District had entered into a lease agreement in 2017 to acquire computer equipment. The equipment was acquired through COSTARS, a cooperative purchasing program. While purchases through COSTARS meet the cooperative purchase requirement for local government purchasing under 62 Pa.C.S. section 1902, they do not meet the more stringent requirements of the Uniform Grant Guidance. Subsequently, the District decided to budget for and pay for this lease agreement in the 2021-2022 school year under the Education Stabilization Fund. In using federal funds to pay for the lease agreement, the District inadvertently did not follow its procurement policy. While the school district developed a plan to correct these procedures, it was not fully implemented until the 2023-2024 school year. Cause: Non-compliance with Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements. Effect: The District did not follow its procurement policy and ultimately did not comply with the standards of the Uniform Grant Guidance. Questioned Cost: None Identification of Repeat Finding: Yes Recommendation: The District must implement procedures to fully comply with Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements. View of Responsible Officials: The District will require all payments to have either a purchase order or request for payment form completed. The Accounts Payable Coordinator is responsible for ensuring the form is signed for all disbursements. For the particular item cited by our monitors the Superintendent and Business Manager signed off on the invoice instead of a request for payment form. The District Accountant / Business Office Manager discussed with the Accounts Payable Coordinator that going forward this is insufficient. All payments must have either a purchase order or request for payment form. The District Accountant / Business Office Manager reviews backup documentation for check disbursements. During their review if any payments are discovered to be missing a purchase order or request for payment form, he will notify the Accounts Payable Coordinator to complete the form. This is effective immediately. The District has also reviewed the applicable Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements and has developed an electronic procurement process that all staff member making the purchase with federal funds, must complete a form prior to the procurement being made. Then the Business Manager approves the form. There is a box to check if the procurement is a sole source. If this is checked the Business Manager will require justification. This process was presented by the Business Office to Leadership Personnel on 5/9/24 and is effective now.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.319 states that all procurement transactions under the Federal award must be conducted in a manner that provides full and open competition and is consistent with Federal procurement standards. 2 CFR 200.214 states in part that recipients and subrecipients are subject to the nonprocurement debarment and suspension regulations. In addition, 2 CFR 200.303 in part states that a recipient of a Federal award must establish, document, and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award. Condition: We have selected and tested three of the largest vendors from the Child Nutrition Cluster for compliance with procurement and suspension and debarment. We identified that one vendor was not properly procured, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.319–2 CFR 200.324. As a result, the District incurred questioned costs in the amount of $31,401.63, which was in excess of $25,000 Federal requirement, based on 2 CFR 200.516. Also, the District did not perform procedures to verify suspension and debarment on the same vendor. Cause: District’s internal controls over procurement in the Child Nutrition Cluster were properly designed but not operating effectively to verify that all vendors are properly procured and verified for suspension and debarment. The District did not properly procure one vendor within the Child Nutrition Cluster that incurred questioned costs in excess of the $25,000 threshold, based on 2 CFR 200.516. Effect: The District did not properly procure one vendor within the Child Nutrition Cluster that incurred questioned costs in excess of the $25,000 threshold, based on 2 CFR 200.516, and, as a result, revealed a significant deficiency in internal controls over procurement in the Child Nutrition Cluster. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the District re-evaluate the procurement processes in the Child Nutrition Services program and re-evaluate the design of internal controls over procurement and suspension and debarment to be in compliance with the Federal requirements and the District’s procurement policy.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.
Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR 200.324 (a), the recipient or subrecipient must perform a cost or price analysis for every procurement transaction, including contract modifications, in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold. The method and degree of analysis conducted depend on the facts surrounding the particular procurement transaction. For example, the recipient or subrecipient should consider potential workforce impacts in their analysis if the procurement transaction will displace public sector employees. However, as a starting point, the recipient or subrecipient must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. Condition In our testing, 10 of 25 samples were in excess of the University’s simplified acquisition threshold of $50,000. These 10 selections did not have evidence of an independent cost or price analysis in accordance with CFR 200.324 (a). Cause Management’s current policy does not require an independent cost or price analysis to be documented as part of the procurement process for those items meeting the University’s simplified acquisition threshold. Effect The University could be entering into transactions which are not the most economical or practical procurements for the Federal Government and such transaction could be unallowed or result in unallowable costs. Questioned Costs None. Recommendation We recommend that the University update its procurement policy so that contemporaneous documentation and retention of evidence for the selection of each vendor that meets the University’s simplified acquisition threshold is maintained consistently in the procurement files. Documentation should clearly outline the University’s independent cost or price analysis. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s views and corrective action plan is included at the end of this report.