2 CFR § 400.1 gives regulatory effect for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the OMB guidance in 2 CFR § 200. 2 CFR § 200.317 - 200.327 requires entities to use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable State and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable Federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. A non-Federal entity must: 1. Meet the general procurement standards in 2 CFR 200.318, which include oversight of contractors’ performance, maintaining written standards of conduct for employees involved in contracting, awarding contracts only to responsible contractors, and maintaining records to document history of procurements. 2. Conduct all procurement transactions in a manner providing full and open competition, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.319. 3. Use the micro-purchase and small purchase methods only for procurements that meet the applicable criteria under 2 CFR 200.320(a)(1) and (2). Under the micro-purchase method, the aggregate dollar amount does not exceed $10,000 ($2,000 in the case of acquisition for construction subject to the Wage Rate Requirements (Davis-Bacon Act)). Small purchase procedures are used for purchases that exceed the micro-purchase amount but do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold ($250,000). Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive quotations if the non-Federal entity considers the price to be reasonable (2 CFR 200.320(a)). If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources (2 CFR 200.320(b)). 4. For acquisitions exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, the non-Federal entity must use one of the following procurement methods: the sealed bid method if the acquisition meets the criteria in 2 CFR 200.320(b); the competitive proposals method under the conditions specified in 2 CFR 200.320(b)(2); or the noncompetitive proposals method (i.e., solicit a proposal from only one source) but only when one or more of four circumstances are met, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.320(c). 5. Perform a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement action in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold, including contract modifications (2 CFR 200.324(a)). The cost plus a percentage of cost and percentage of construction cost methods of contracting must not be used (2 CFR 200.324(d)). 6. Ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes applicable provisions required by 2 CFR 200.326. These provisions are described in Appendix II to 2 CFR Part 200, “Contract Provisions for Non-Federal Entity Contracts Under Federal Awards.” The School District paid more than $250,000 to Valley Wholesale during fiscal year 2023 for food products for the Child Nutrition Cluster. This amount exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold thus the District should follow a formal competitive procurement method described in 2 CFR 200.320(b). However, the School District did not follow a formal procurement method because they chose to use this local vendor (Valley Wholesale) to allow them to get their fresh produce in a timely manner to avoid food waste. The School District did not have the proper internal controls in place to ensure proper bidding procedures were followed. Failure to have the appropriate controls in place may result in vendors being used that are not providing the best possible prices. The School District should follow their established procurement policies and federal guidelines when choosing all vendors for the Child Nutrition Cluster.
2 CFR § 400.1 gives regulatory effect for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the OMB guidance in 2 CFR § 200. 2 CFR § 200.317 - 200.327 requires entities to use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable State and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable Federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. A non-Federal entity must: 1. Meet the general procurement standards in 2 CFR 200.318, which include oversight of contractors’ performance, maintaining written standards of conduct for employees involved in contracting, awarding contracts only to responsible contractors, and maintaining records to document history of procurements. 2. Conduct all procurement transactions in a manner providing full and open competition, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.319. 3. Use the micro-purchase and small purchase methods only for procurements that meet the applicable criteria under 2 CFR 200.320(a)(1) and (2). Under the micro-purchase method, the aggregate dollar amount does not exceed $10,000 ($2,000 in the case of acquisition for construction subject to the Wage Rate Requirements (Davis-Bacon Act)). Small purchase procedures are used for purchases that exceed the micro-purchase amount but do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold ($250,000). Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive quotations if the non-Federal entity considers the price to be reasonable (2 CFR 200.320(a)). If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources (2 CFR 200.320(b)). 4. For acquisitions exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, the non-Federal entity must use one of the following procurement methods: the sealed bid method if the acquisition meets the criteria in 2 CFR 200.320(b); the competitive proposals method under the conditions specified in 2 CFR 200.320(b)(2); or the noncompetitive proposals method (i.e., solicit a proposal from only one source) but only when one or more of four circumstances are met, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.320(c). 5. Perform a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement action in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold, including contract modifications (2 CFR 200.324(a)). The cost plus a percentage of cost and percentage of construction cost methods of contracting must not be used (2 CFR 200.324(d)). 6. Ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes applicable provisions required by 2 CFR 200.326. These provisions are described in Appendix II to 2 CFR Part 200, “Contract Provisions for Non-Federal Entity Contracts Under Federal Awards.” The School District paid more than $250,000 to Valley Wholesale during fiscal year 2023 for food products for the Child Nutrition Cluster. This amount exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold thus the District should follow a formal competitive procurement method described in 2 CFR 200.320(b). However, the School District did not follow a formal procurement method because they chose to use this local vendor (Valley Wholesale) to allow them to get their fresh produce in a timely manner to avoid food waste. The School District did not have the proper internal controls in place to ensure proper bidding procedures were followed. Failure to have the appropriate controls in place may result in vendors being used that are not providing the best possible prices. The School District should follow their established procurement policies and federal guidelines when choosing all vendors for the Child Nutrition Cluster.
2023 – 006 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program Title: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (ARPA) ALN: 21.027 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 1505-0271 3/3/2021 – 12/31/2024 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), the City of Nogales must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that it is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Per 2 CFR 200.324, 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. Non-federal entities are prohibited from contracting with or making subawards under covered transactions to parties that are suspended or debarred. “Covered transactions” include contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (e.g., grant or cooperative agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000 or meet certain other criteria as specified in 2 CFR section 180.220). All non-procurement transactions entered into by a pass-through entity (i.e., subawards to subrecipients), irrespective of award amount, are considered covered transactions, unless they are exempt as provided in 2 CFR section 180.215. When a non-Federal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the non- Federal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. This verification may be accomplished by: (1) checking the System for Award Management (SAM) Exclusions maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA) and available at SAM.gov | Home (click on Search Record, then click on Advanced Search-Exclusions) (Note: The OMB guidance at 2 CFR part 180 and agency implementing regulations still refer to the SAM Exclusions as the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS)), (2) collecting a certification from the entity, or (3) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that entity (2 CFR section 180.300). SECTION III – FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (CONTINUED) 2023 – 006 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Continued) Condition: Audit procedures included selection and testing of five competitively procured vendor contracts. No evidence of procurement documentation provided for review. Five out of five vendors tested for procurement did not provide support for the procurement method used, price/bid comparison, and cost analysis performed. Two out five vendors tested over with purchases over $100,000 did not provide support for the control in place for the review and approval by the City Manager. Five out of five vendors tested did not provide support for the SAMS verification check that the winning vendor was not suspended nor debarred from receiving federal funds prior to awarding the contract. Questioned costs: Unknown Context: See “Condition.” Cause: The City’s procurement, suspension and debarment policies and procedures are in compliance with Uniform Grant Guidance but were not properly adhered to. The City notes that no contracts or agreements were set up with the vendors, as they were locally established and had valid business licenses with the City. Effect: The City is not in compliance with uniform grant guidance requirements related to procurement, suspension, and debarment. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: The City of Nogales should enhance and/or modify existing controls over procurement, suspension and debarment policies and procedures to ensure adherence to all uniform grant guidance requirements. This could include implementing a more robust checklist that should be completed, signed off by management and included with each procurement which has all required items noted such as cost/price analysis and verification of suspension and debarment of vendors. Views of responsible officials: See corrective action plan. Corrective action plan: See corrective action plan.
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: The School District of the City of Monessen contracted with a third-party vendor (TRANE) for the performance of a construction project at the District. The contract with the third-party vendor, which was procured through a cooperative purchasing group, exceeded the threshold for competitive procurement. The District was unable to provide documentation to verify that the third-party procurement contract was competitively procured, such as a bid evaluation and public solicitation. This is a repeat finding from the 2021-2022 fiscal year – Finding 2022-001. In addition, the District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for this procurement, which was in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. CRITERIA: 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code and Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance prescribes the bidding requirements for equipment, supplies, and work of any nature made by a school district whereby the cost exceeds certain dollar thresholds as adjusted annually for an inflation index. The construction project exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000. As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, Section 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance requires the performance of a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. CAUSE: School District personnel directly responsible for the oversight and execution of this contract interpreted that the requirements specified by 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code, and Sections 2 CFR 200.318(i) and 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance, would be met through the cooperative purchasing process based on an analysis of the documentation provided to them by the third-party vendor, however the District maintained no records internally to support this compliance. EFFECT: The School District of the City of Monessen did not comply with the requirements of 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code, and Sections 2 CFR 200.318(i) and 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance with regard to maintaining sufficient records to detail the history of procurement for the construction project and conducting a cost or price analysis for a procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. QUESTIONED COST: $206,784 RECOMMENDATION: I am recommending that the management of the School District review and update as necessary its procurement policies to ensure retention of the appropriate procurement documentation, in all instances, including such instances whereby the District is using a contract vehicle from a cooperative purchase network so as to comply with all applicable sections of the Uniform Guidance, in specifically, Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance. In addition, I recommend that the School District conduct a cost or price analysis for all procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000 before receiving bids or proposals in accordance with Section 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: Management of the School District has reviewed the above noted finding and recommendation and have developed a corresponding ‘Corrective Action Plan’ to address this matter (See Corrective Action Plan).
CONDITION: The School District of the City of Monessen contracted with a third-party vendor (TRANE) for the performance of a construction project at the District. The contract with the third-party vendor, which was procured through a cooperative purchasing group, exceeded the threshold for competitive procurement. The District was unable to provide documentation to verify that the third-party procurement contract was competitively procured, such as a bid evaluation and public solicitation. This is a repeat finding from the 2021-2022 fiscal year – Finding 2022-001. In addition, the District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for this procurement, which was in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. CRITERIA: 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code and Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance prescribes the bidding requirements for equipment, supplies, and work of any nature made by a school district whereby the cost exceeds certain dollar thresholds as adjusted annually for an inflation index. The construction project exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000. As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, Section 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance requires the performance of a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. CAUSE: School District personnel directly responsible for the oversight and execution of this contract interpreted that the requirements specified by 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code, and Sections 2 CFR 200.318(i) and 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance, would be met through the cooperative purchasing process based on an analysis of the documentation provided to them by the third-party vendor, however the District maintained no records internally to support this compliance. EFFECT: The School District of the City of Monessen did not comply with the requirements of 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code, and Sections 2 CFR 200.318(i) and 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance with regard to maintaining sufficient records to detail the history of procurement for the construction project and conducting a cost or price analysis for a procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. QUESTIONED COST: $206,784 RECOMMENDATION: I am recommending that the management of the School District review and update as necessary its procurement policies to ensure retention of the appropriate procurement documentation, in all instances, including such instances whereby the District is using a contract vehicle from a cooperative purchase network so as to comply with all applicable sections of the Uniform Guidance, in specifically, Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance. In addition, I recommend that the School District conduct a cost or price analysis for all procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000 before receiving bids or proposals in accordance with Section 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: Management of the School District has reviewed the above noted finding and recommendation and have developed a corresponding ‘Corrective Action Plan’ to address this matter (See Corrective Action Plan).
CONDITION: The School District of the City of Monessen contracted with a third-party vendor (TRANE) for the performance of a construction project at the District. The contract with the third-party vendor, which was procured through a cooperative purchasing group, exceeded the threshold for competitive procurement. The District was unable to provide documentation to verify that the third-party procurement contract was competitively procured, such as a bid evaluation and public solicitation. This is a repeat finding from the 2021-2022 fiscal year – Finding 2022-001. In addition, the District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for this procurement, which was in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. CRITERIA: 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code and Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance prescribes the bidding requirements for equipment, supplies, and work of any nature made by a school district whereby the cost exceeds certain dollar thresholds as adjusted annually for an inflation index. The construction project exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000. As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, Section 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance requires the performance of a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. CAUSE: School District personnel directly responsible for the oversight and execution of this contract interpreted that the requirements specified by 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code, and Sections 2 CFR 200.318(i) and 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance, would be met through the cooperative purchasing process based on an analysis of the documentation provided to them by the third-party vendor, however the District maintained no records internally to support this compliance. EFFECT: The School District of the City of Monessen did not comply with the requirements of 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code, and Sections 2 CFR 200.318(i) and 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance with regard to maintaining sufficient records to detail the history of procurement for the construction project and conducting a cost or price analysis for a procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. QUESTIONED COST: $206,784 RECOMMENDATION: I am recommending that the management of the School District review and update as necessary its procurement policies to ensure retention of the appropriate procurement documentation, in all instances, including such instances whereby the District is using a contract vehicle from a cooperative purchase network so as to comply with all applicable sections of the Uniform Guidance, in specifically, Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance. In addition, I recommend that the School District conduct a cost or price analysis for all procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000 before receiving bids or proposals in accordance with Section 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: Management of the School District has reviewed the above noted finding and recommendation and have developed a corresponding ‘Corrective Action Plan’ to address this matter (See Corrective Action Plan).
CONDITION: The School District of the City of Monessen contracted with a third-party vendor (TRANE) for the performance of a construction project at the District. The contract with the third-party vendor, which was procured through a cooperative purchasing group, exceeded the threshold for competitive procurement. The District was unable to provide documentation to verify that the third-party procurement contract was competitively procured, such as a bid evaluation and public solicitation. This is a repeat finding from the 2021-2022 fiscal year – Finding 2022-001. In addition, the District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for this procurement, which was in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. CRITERIA: 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code and Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance prescribes the bidding requirements for equipment, supplies, and work of any nature made by a school district whereby the cost exceeds certain dollar thresholds as adjusted annually for an inflation index. The construction project exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000. As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, Section 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance requires the performance of a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. CAUSE: School District personnel directly responsible for the oversight and execution of this contract interpreted that the requirements specified by 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code, and Sections 2 CFR 200.318(i) and 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance, would be met through the cooperative purchasing process based on an analysis of the documentation provided to them by the third-party vendor, however the District maintained no records internally to support this compliance. EFFECT: The School District of the City of Monessen did not comply with the requirements of 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code, and Sections 2 CFR 200.318(i) and 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance with regard to maintaining sufficient records to detail the history of procurement for the construction project and conducting a cost or price analysis for a procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. QUESTIONED COST: $206,784 RECOMMENDATION: I am recommending that the management of the School District review and update as necessary its procurement policies to ensure retention of the appropriate procurement documentation, in all instances, including such instances whereby the District is using a contract vehicle from a cooperative purchase network so as to comply with all applicable sections of the Uniform Guidance, in specifically, Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance. In addition, I recommend that the School District conduct a cost or price analysis for all procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000 before receiving bids or proposals in accordance with Section 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: Management of the School District has reviewed the above noted finding and recommendation and have developed a corresponding ‘Corrective Action Plan’ to address this matter (See Corrective Action Plan).
Reference Number: 2023-025 Prior Year Finding: No Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services State Agency: Agency of Human Services Federal Program: COVID-19 - Activities to Support State, Tribal, Local and Territorial (STLT) Health Department Response to Public Health or Healthcare Crises Assistance Listing Number: 93.391 Award Number and Year: NH75OT000034 (6/1/2021 – 5/31/2024) Compliance Requirement: Procurement Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance, Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: Compliance: Per 2 CFR section 200.324(a), 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. Control: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should comply with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Condition: The Agency of Human Services (Agency) was unable to provide documentation that a cost analysis was performed for a procurement action in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. Context: For one of seven contracts selected for testing, the Agency was unable to provide documentation that a cost analysis was performed. Cause: The Agency’s procedures were not sufficient to ensure that a cost analysis was performed for all procurement actions in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. Internal controls did not detect or prevent the error. Section III – Findings and Questioned Costs – Major Federal Programs (Continued) Effect: Failure to perform a cost analysis could result in the Agency procuring goods or services that are not cost-effective nor in the best interest of the Agency or the program. Questioned costs: Undetermined. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review and enhance internal controls and procedures to ensure that it performs a cost analysis for all procurement actions in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold, including contract modifications. We further recommend that cost analysis documentation is maintained and readily available for audit. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding.
Finding 2023-004 – Material Weakness AL No: 20.507 Federal Grantor: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration, Federal Transit Formula Grants - Direct Award. Compliance Requirement: Procurement, Suspension and Debarment. Condition: The District was unable to provide documentation that the procurement of the CNG tank replacement project for five Orion buses exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000 was approved by the Board. There is documentation that an invitation for bid (IFB) was released for the project, but only one bid was received and the District awarded the contract to the sole bidder. Missing documentation includes support of the rationale to approve the contract absent evidence of full and open competition. The District was also not able to provide the request for proposal for review. Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200 Subpart E (Uniform Guidance) states the following: Section 200.318(a) states that “The non-federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or service required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity’s documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in Sections 200.317 through 200.327.” Section 200.318(i) states that “The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price.” Section 200.320(c) states that “There are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply: (1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold…; (2) The item is available only from a single source; (3) The public exigency or emergency for the retirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; (4) The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non- Federal entity; or (5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate.” Section 200.324(a) states that “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.” Cause: Staff turnover at the District and the need for the project to be completed by a certain date to avoid the buses losing certification led to the lack of adequate records being maintained. Effect: The District was unable to prove it was in compliance with the Uniform Guidance regarding open competition on procurements. Context: The CNG tank replacement needed to be completed by a certain timeframe in order for the buses to be operational, so not every step was documented. The awarded contract was signed on the date of a Board meeting, but the Board minutes did not document that this contract was reviewed nor approved by the Board. Recommendation: We recommend the District establish a procurement folder on its server with subfolders for each individual procurement where documentation of each procurement is maintained, including advertising of the procurement, requests for proposals, proposals received, analysis of reasons for selecting the winning bid, executed contract, certifications by contractor if not part of proposal or executed contract, management report to board recommending which bid should be approved, board resolution approving the winning bid and for contracts under $250,000 a memo or form documenting bids received and reason for selecting the bid, including reasons for not selecting the lowest bid if applicable. We also recommend training be provided to staff that work on procurements of the requirements under Uniform Guidance Section 2 CFR 200.318 to 200.326. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management’s response and planned corrective action is included at the Corrective Action Plan end of this report.
2 CFR § 400.1 gives regulatory effect for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the OMB guidance in 2 CFR § 200. 2 CFR § 200.317 - 200.327 requires entities to use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable State and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable Federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. A non-Federal entity must: 1. Meet the general procurement standards in 2 CFR 200.318, which include oversight of contractors’ performance, maintaining written standards of conduct for employees involved in contracting, awarding contracts only to responsible contractors, and maintaining records to document history of procurements. 2. Conduct all procurement transactions in a manner providing full and open competition, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.319. 3. Use the micro-purchase and small purchase methods only for procurements that meet the applicable criteria under 2 CFR 200.320(a)(1) and (2). Under the micro-purchase method, the aggregate dollar amount does not exceed $10,000 ($2,000 in the case of acquisition for construction subject to the Wage Rate Requirements (Davis-Bacon Act)). Small purchase procedures are used for purchases that exceed the micro-purchase amount but do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold ($250,000). Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive quotations if the non-Federal entity considers the price to be reasonable (2 CFR 200.320(a)). If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources (2 CFR 200.320(b)). 4. For acquisitions exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, the non-Federal entity must use one of the following procurement methods: the sealed bid method if the acquisition meets the criteria in 2 CFR 200.320(b); the competitive proposals method under the conditions specified in 2 CFR 200.320(b)(2); or the noncompetitive proposals method (i.e., solicit a proposal from only one source) but only when one or more of four circumstances are met, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.320(c). 5. Perform a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement action in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold, including contract modifications (2 CFR 200.324(a)). The cost plus a percentage of cost and percentage of construction cost methods of contracting must not be used (2 CFR 200.324(d)). 6. Ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes applicable provisions required by 2 CFR 200.326. These provisions are described in Appendix II to 2 CFR Part 200, “Contract Provisions for Non-Federal Entity Contracts Under Federal Awards.” The School District paid more than $250,000 to Valley Wholesale during fiscal year 2023 for food products for the Child Nutrition Cluster. This amount exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold thus the District should follow a formal competitive procurement method described in 2 CFR 200.320(b). However, the School District did not follow a formal procurement method because they chose to use this local vendor (Valley Wholesale) to allow them to get their fresh produce in a timely manner to avoid food waste. The School District did not have the proper internal controls in place to ensure proper bidding procedures were followed. Failure to have the appropriate controls in place may result in vendors being used that are not providing the best possible prices. The School District should follow their established procurement policies and federal guidelines when choosing all vendors for the Child Nutrition Cluster.
2 CFR § 400.1 gives regulatory effect for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the OMB guidance in 2 CFR § 200. 2 CFR § 200.317 - 200.327 requires entities to use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable State and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable Federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. A non-Federal entity must: 1. Meet the general procurement standards in 2 CFR 200.318, which include oversight of contractors’ performance, maintaining written standards of conduct for employees involved in contracting, awarding contracts only to responsible contractors, and maintaining records to document history of procurements. 2. Conduct all procurement transactions in a manner providing full and open competition, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.319. 3. Use the micro-purchase and small purchase methods only for procurements that meet the applicable criteria under 2 CFR 200.320(a)(1) and (2). Under the micro-purchase method, the aggregate dollar amount does not exceed $10,000 ($2,000 in the case of acquisition for construction subject to the Wage Rate Requirements (Davis-Bacon Act)). Small purchase procedures are used for purchases that exceed the micro-purchase amount but do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold ($250,000). Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive quotations if the non-Federal entity considers the price to be reasonable (2 CFR 200.320(a)). If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources (2 CFR 200.320(b)). 4. For acquisitions exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, the non-Federal entity must use one of the following procurement methods: the sealed bid method if the acquisition meets the criteria in 2 CFR 200.320(b); the competitive proposals method under the conditions specified in 2 CFR 200.320(b)(2); or the noncompetitive proposals method (i.e., solicit a proposal from only one source) but only when one or more of four circumstances are met, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.320(c). 5. Perform a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement action in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold, including contract modifications (2 CFR 200.324(a)). The cost plus a percentage of cost and percentage of construction cost methods of contracting must not be used (2 CFR 200.324(d)). 6. Ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes applicable provisions required by 2 CFR 200.326. These provisions are described in Appendix II to 2 CFR Part 200, “Contract Provisions for Non-Federal Entity Contracts Under Federal Awards.” The School District paid more than $250,000 to Valley Wholesale during fiscal year 2023 for food products for the Child Nutrition Cluster. This amount exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold thus the District should follow a formal competitive procurement method described in 2 CFR 200.320(b). However, the School District did not follow a formal procurement method because they chose to use this local vendor (Valley Wholesale) to allow them to get their fresh produce in a timely manner to avoid food waste. The School District did not have the proper internal controls in place to ensure proper bidding procedures were followed. Failure to have the appropriate controls in place may result in vendors being used that are not providing the best possible prices. The School District should follow their established procurement policies and federal guidelines when choosing all vendors for the Child Nutrition Cluster.
2 CFR § 400.1 gives regulatory effect for the U.S. Department of Agriculture to the OMB guidance in 2 CFR § 200. 2 CFR § 200.317 - 200.327 requires entities to use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable State and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable Federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. A non-Federal entity must: 1. Meet the general procurement standards in 2 CFR 200.318, which include oversight of contractors’ performance, maintaining written standards of conduct for employees involved in contracting, awarding contracts only to responsible contractors, and maintaining records to document history of procurements. 2. Conduct all procurement transactions in a manner providing full and open competition, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.319. 3. Use the micro-purchase and small purchase methods only for procurements that meet the applicable criteria under 2 CFR 200.320(a)(1) and (2). Under the micro-purchase method, the aggregate dollar amount does not exceed $10,000 ($2,000 in the case of acquisition for construction subject to the Wage Rate Requirements (Davis-Bacon Act)). Small purchase procedures are used for purchases that exceed the micro-purchase amount but do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold ($250,000). Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive quotations if the non-Federal entity considers the price to be reasonable (2 CFR 200.320(a)). If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources (2 CFR 200.320(b)). 4. For acquisitions exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, the non-Federal entity must use one of the following procurement methods: the sealed bid method if the acquisition meets the criteria in 2 CFR 200.320(b); the competitive proposals method under the conditions specified in 2 CFR 200.320(b)(2); or the noncompetitive proposals method (i.e., solicit a proposal from only one source) but only when one or more of four circumstances are met, in accordance with 2 CFR 200.320(c). 5. Perform a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement action in excess of the simplified acquisition threshold, including contract modifications (2 CFR 200.324(a)). The cost plus a percentage of cost and percentage of construction cost methods of contracting must not be used (2 CFR 200.324(d)). 6. Ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes applicable provisions required by 2 CFR 200.326. These provisions are described in Appendix II to 2 CFR Part 200, “Contract Provisions for Non-Federal Entity Contracts Under Federal Awards.” The School District paid more than $250,000 to Valley Wholesale during fiscal year 2023 for food products for the Child Nutrition Cluster. This amount exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold thus the District should follow a formal competitive procurement method described in 2 CFR 200.320(b). However, the School District did not follow a formal procurement method because they chose to use this local vendor (Valley Wholesale) to allow them to get their fresh produce in a timely manner to avoid food waste. The School District did not have the proper internal controls in place to ensure proper bidding procedures were followed. Failure to have the appropriate controls in place may result in vendors being used that are not providing the best possible prices. The School District should follow their established procurement policies and federal guidelines when choosing all vendors for the Child Nutrition Cluster.
2023 – 006 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program Title: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (ARPA) ALN: 21.027 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 1505-0271 3/3/2021 – 12/31/2024 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), the City of Nogales must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that it is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Per 2 CFR 200.324, 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. Non-federal entities are prohibited from contracting with or making subawards under covered transactions to parties that are suspended or debarred. “Covered transactions” include contracts for goods and services awarded under a non-procurement transaction (e.g., grant or cooperative agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000 or meet certain other criteria as specified in 2 CFR section 180.220). All non-procurement transactions entered into by a pass-through entity (i.e., subawards to subrecipients), irrespective of award amount, are considered covered transactions, unless they are exempt as provided in 2 CFR section 180.215. When a non-Federal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the non- Federal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. This verification may be accomplished by: (1) checking the System for Award Management (SAM) Exclusions maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA) and available at SAM.gov | Home (click on Search Record, then click on Advanced Search-Exclusions) (Note: The OMB guidance at 2 CFR part 180 and agency implementing regulations still refer to the SAM Exclusions as the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS)), (2) collecting a certification from the entity, or (3) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that entity (2 CFR section 180.300). SECTION III – FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (CONTINUED) 2023 – 006 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment (Continued) Condition: Audit procedures included selection and testing of five competitively procured vendor contracts. No evidence of procurement documentation provided for review. Five out of five vendors tested for procurement did not provide support for the procurement method used, price/bid comparison, and cost analysis performed. Two out five vendors tested over with purchases over $100,000 did not provide support for the control in place for the review and approval by the City Manager. Five out of five vendors tested did not provide support for the SAMS verification check that the winning vendor was not suspended nor debarred from receiving federal funds prior to awarding the contract. Questioned costs: Unknown Context: See “Condition.” Cause: The City’s procurement, suspension and debarment policies and procedures are in compliance with Uniform Grant Guidance but were not properly adhered to. The City notes that no contracts or agreements were set up with the vendors, as they were locally established and had valid business licenses with the City. Effect: The City is not in compliance with uniform grant guidance requirements related to procurement, suspension, and debarment. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: The City of Nogales should enhance and/or modify existing controls over procurement, suspension and debarment policies and procedures to ensure adherence to all uniform grant guidance requirements. This could include implementing a more robust checklist that should be completed, signed off by management and included with each procurement which has all required items noted such as cost/price analysis and verification of suspension and debarment of vendors. Views of responsible officials: See corrective action plan. Corrective action plan: See corrective action plan.
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: During my review of Aliquippa School District’s compliance with the requirements of the Public School Code and the Uniform Guidance for procurement of goods and services, the District was unable to provide documentation or other evidence that 1) competitive bidding was performed for the purchases of goods or services over $22,500 and 2) a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000), or 3) the vendor met the requirements of a ‘sole source provider’ with documentation to support such designation, for the following vendors –– Houghton Mifflin-Harcourt ($509,919), Beaver Valley Intermediate Unit ($419,826), and Smart Solutions ($449,303). CRITERIA: As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, small purchase procedures per 2 CFR 200.320(a)(2)(i) for acquisitions between the micro-purchase threshold (currently $10,000) and the simplified acquisition threshold (current $250,000), price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate. Per 24 PA Statue 8.807.1, there should be three quotes that are either written or well documented. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. CAUSE: District officials responsible for federal procurement did not adhere to District, state and federal policies and regulations regarding the expenditure of federal funds. EFFECT: The District did not comply with 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, or 4) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). QUESTIONED COST: $1,379,048 RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases of goods and/or services utilizing federal funds, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs, 2) the 24 PA Statute 8.807.1, 3) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement which includes rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price, 4) Section 2 CFR 200.300(a)(2)(i) of the Uniform Guidance regarding obtaining three price or rate quotations for the purchase of goods between $10,000 and $22,500, and services between $10,000 and $250,000, and as applicable, 5) Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement using federal funding, and 5) Section CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance regarding the requirement to perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000). VIEW OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: See Correction Action Plan
CONDITION: The School District of the City of Monessen contracted with a third-party vendor (TRANE) for the performance of a construction project at the District. The contract with the third-party vendor, which was procured through a cooperative purchasing group, exceeded the threshold for competitive procurement. The District was unable to provide documentation to verify that the third-party procurement contract was competitively procured, such as a bid evaluation and public solicitation. This is a repeat finding from the 2021-2022 fiscal year – Finding 2022-001. In addition, the District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for this procurement, which was in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. CRITERIA: 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code and Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance prescribes the bidding requirements for equipment, supplies, and work of any nature made by a school district whereby the cost exceeds certain dollar thresholds as adjusted annually for an inflation index. The construction project exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000. As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, Section 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance requires the performance of a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. CAUSE: School District personnel directly responsible for the oversight and execution of this contract interpreted that the requirements specified by 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code, and Sections 2 CFR 200.318(i) and 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance, would be met through the cooperative purchasing process based on an analysis of the documentation provided to them by the third-party vendor, however the District maintained no records internally to support this compliance. EFFECT: The School District of the City of Monessen did not comply with the requirements of 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code, and Sections 2 CFR 200.318(i) and 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance with regard to maintaining sufficient records to detail the history of procurement for the construction project and conducting a cost or price analysis for a procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. QUESTIONED COST: $206,784 RECOMMENDATION: I am recommending that the management of the School District review and update as necessary its procurement policies to ensure retention of the appropriate procurement documentation, in all instances, including such instances whereby the District is using a contract vehicle from a cooperative purchase network so as to comply with all applicable sections of the Uniform Guidance, in specifically, Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance. In addition, I recommend that the School District conduct a cost or price analysis for all procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000 before receiving bids or proposals in accordance with Section 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: Management of the School District has reviewed the above noted finding and recommendation and have developed a corresponding ‘Corrective Action Plan’ to address this matter (See Corrective Action Plan).
CONDITION: The School District of the City of Monessen contracted with a third-party vendor (TRANE) for the performance of a construction project at the District. The contract with the third-party vendor, which was procured through a cooperative purchasing group, exceeded the threshold for competitive procurement. The District was unable to provide documentation to verify that the third-party procurement contract was competitively procured, such as a bid evaluation and public solicitation. This is a repeat finding from the 2021-2022 fiscal year – Finding 2022-001. In addition, the District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for this procurement, which was in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. CRITERIA: 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code and Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance prescribes the bidding requirements for equipment, supplies, and work of any nature made by a school district whereby the cost exceeds certain dollar thresholds as adjusted annually for an inflation index. The construction project exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000. As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, Section 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance requires the performance of a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. CAUSE: School District personnel directly responsible for the oversight and execution of this contract interpreted that the requirements specified by 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code, and Sections 2 CFR 200.318(i) and 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance, would be met through the cooperative purchasing process based on an analysis of the documentation provided to them by the third-party vendor, however the District maintained no records internally to support this compliance. EFFECT: The School District of the City of Monessen did not comply with the requirements of 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code, and Sections 2 CFR 200.318(i) and 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance with regard to maintaining sufficient records to detail the history of procurement for the construction project and conducting a cost or price analysis for a procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. QUESTIONED COST: $206,784 RECOMMENDATION: I am recommending that the management of the School District review and update as necessary its procurement policies to ensure retention of the appropriate procurement documentation, in all instances, including such instances whereby the District is using a contract vehicle from a cooperative purchase network so as to comply with all applicable sections of the Uniform Guidance, in specifically, Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance. In addition, I recommend that the School District conduct a cost or price analysis for all procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000 before receiving bids or proposals in accordance with Section 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: Management of the School District has reviewed the above noted finding and recommendation and have developed a corresponding ‘Corrective Action Plan’ to address this matter (See Corrective Action Plan).
CONDITION: The School District of the City of Monessen contracted with a third-party vendor (TRANE) for the performance of a construction project at the District. The contract with the third-party vendor, which was procured through a cooperative purchasing group, exceeded the threshold for competitive procurement. The District was unable to provide documentation to verify that the third-party procurement contract was competitively procured, such as a bid evaluation and public solicitation. This is a repeat finding from the 2021-2022 fiscal year – Finding 2022-001. In addition, the District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for this procurement, which was in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. CRITERIA: 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code and Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance prescribes the bidding requirements for equipment, supplies, and work of any nature made by a school district whereby the cost exceeds certain dollar thresholds as adjusted annually for an inflation index. The construction project exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000. As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, Section 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance requires the performance of a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. CAUSE: School District personnel directly responsible for the oversight and execution of this contract interpreted that the requirements specified by 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code, and Sections 2 CFR 200.318(i) and 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance, would be met through the cooperative purchasing process based on an analysis of the documentation provided to them by the third-party vendor, however the District maintained no records internally to support this compliance. EFFECT: The School District of the City of Monessen did not comply with the requirements of 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code, and Sections 2 CFR 200.318(i) and 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance with regard to maintaining sufficient records to detail the history of procurement for the construction project and conducting a cost or price analysis for a procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. QUESTIONED COST: $206,784 RECOMMENDATION: I am recommending that the management of the School District review and update as necessary its procurement policies to ensure retention of the appropriate procurement documentation, in all instances, including such instances whereby the District is using a contract vehicle from a cooperative purchase network so as to comply with all applicable sections of the Uniform Guidance, in specifically, Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance. In addition, I recommend that the School District conduct a cost or price analysis for all procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000 before receiving bids or proposals in accordance with Section 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: Management of the School District has reviewed the above noted finding and recommendation and have developed a corresponding ‘Corrective Action Plan’ to address this matter (See Corrective Action Plan).
CONDITION: The School District of the City of Monessen contracted with a third-party vendor (TRANE) for the performance of a construction project at the District. The contract with the third-party vendor, which was procured through a cooperative purchasing group, exceeded the threshold for competitive procurement. The District was unable to provide documentation to verify that the third-party procurement contract was competitively procured, such as a bid evaluation and public solicitation. This is a repeat finding from the 2021-2022 fiscal year – Finding 2022-001. In addition, the District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for this procurement, which was in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. CRITERIA: 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code and Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance prescribes the bidding requirements for equipment, supplies, and work of any nature made by a school district whereby the cost exceeds certain dollar thresholds as adjusted annually for an inflation index. The construction project exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000. As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District 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. In addition, Section 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance requires the performance of a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. CAUSE: School District personnel directly responsible for the oversight and execution of this contract interpreted that the requirements specified by 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code, and Sections 2 CFR 200.318(i) and 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance, would be met through the cooperative purchasing process based on an analysis of the documentation provided to them by the third-party vendor, however the District maintained no records internally to support this compliance. EFFECT: The School District of the City of Monessen did not comply with the requirements of 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code, and Sections 2 CFR 200.318(i) and 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance with regard to maintaining sufficient records to detail the history of procurement for the construction project and conducting a cost or price analysis for a procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. QUESTIONED COST: $206,784 RECOMMENDATION: I am recommending that the management of the School District review and update as necessary its procurement policies to ensure retention of the appropriate procurement documentation, in all instances, including such instances whereby the District is using a contract vehicle from a cooperative purchase network so as to comply with all applicable sections of the Uniform Guidance, in specifically, Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance. In addition, I recommend that the School District conduct a cost or price analysis for all procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000 before receiving bids or proposals in accordance with Section 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: Management of the School District has reviewed the above noted finding and recommendation and have developed a corresponding ‘Corrective Action Plan’ to address this matter (See Corrective Action Plan).
FINDING 2022-005 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): FY 2022 Pass-Through Entity: Department of the Treasury Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The City had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is customarily set at $250,000. However, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold of $150,000 or less for when small purchase procedures may be used. Indiana Code provides that the proper purchasing method would be the bidding process, unless the purchase meets certain other qualifications. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 CITY OF MUNCIE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Six vendors fell within the simplified acquisition threshold. All six vendors were selected for testing. For three of the vendors tested, there were no requests for proposals received and no documentation to support the history of the procurement, including the rationale for the method of procurement, nor selection of the contract. In addition, there was no documentation that a cost or price analysis was performed for the three contracts. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. . . ." 2 CFR 200.324(a) states: "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 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use document procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. . . . INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 CITY OF MUNCIE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance award exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a non-competitive procurement can be used in accordance with § 200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: (1) Sealed bids. A procurement method in which bids are publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price) is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is the lowest in price. The sealed bids method is the preferred method for procuring construction, if the conditions. (i) In order for sealed bidding to be feasible, the following conditions should be present: (A) A complete, adequate, and realistic specification or purchase description is available; (B) Two or more responsible bidders are willing and able to compete effectively for the business; and (C) The procurement lends itself to a firm fixed price contract and the selection of the successful bidder can be made principally on the basis of price. (ii) If sealed bids are used, the following requirements apply: (A) Bids must be solicited from an adequate number of qualified sources, providing them sufficient response time prior to the date set for opening the bids, for local, and tribal governments, the invitation for bids must be publicly advertised; (B) The invitation for bids, which will include any specifications and pertinent attachments, must define the items or services in order for the bidder to properly respond; (C) All bids will be opened at the time and place prescribed in the invitation for bids, and for local and tribal governments, the bids must be opened publicly; (D) A firm fixed price contract award will be made in writing to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Where specified in bidding documents, factors such as discounts, transportation cost, and life cycle costs must be considered in determining which bid is lowest. Payment discounts will only be used to determine the low bid when prior experience indicates that such discounts are usually taken advantage of; and (E) Any or all bids may be rejected if there is a sound documented reason. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 CITY OF MUNCIE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause The system of internal controls as established by the City was not properly implemented to ensure that goods and services that exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold were properly procured. A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the City. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the City's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, proper procurement procedures were not adhered to for all vendors. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City establish a proper system of internal controls, and develop policies and procedures to ensure proper procurement procedures are adhered to for all purchases of good and services paid with federal awards. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.324 notes, ?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.? Condition: For one of six (16.7%) procurements selected for testing exceeded the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000) and a cost or price analysis was not performed. We consider this to be an instance of noncompliance relating to the Procurement, Suspension, and Debarment compliance requirement. Statistical sampling was not used in making sample selections. Questioned Costs: N/A. Cause and Effect: Without cost or price analyses being performed, the Organization may overspend on products or services when compared to other vendors and the environment. Recommendation: We recommend the evaluation policies and procedures to ensure all procurement requirements are followed. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this Single Audit Finding and response is included in the Corrective Action Plan.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.324 notes, ?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.? Condition: For one of six (16.7%) procurements selected for testing exceeded the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000) and a cost or price analysis was not performed. We consider this to be an instance of noncompliance relating to the Procurement, Suspension, and Debarment compliance requirement. Statistical sampling was not used in making sample selections. Questioned Costs: N/A. Cause and Effect: Without cost or price analyses being performed, the Organization may overspend on products or services when compared to other vendors and the environment. Recommendation: We recommend the evaluation policies and procedures to ensure all procurement requirements are followed. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this Single Audit Finding and response is included in the Corrective Action Plan.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.324 notes, ?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.? Condition: For one of six (16.7%) procurements selected for testing exceeded the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000) and a cost or price analysis was not performed. We consider this to be an instance of noncompliance relating to the Procurement, Suspension, and Debarment compliance requirement. Statistical sampling was not used in making sample selections. Questioned Costs: N/A. Cause and Effect: Without cost or price analyses being performed, the Organization may overspend on products or services when compared to other vendors and the environment. Recommendation: We recommend the evaluation policies and procedures to ensure all procurement requirements are followed. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this Single Audit Finding and response is included in the Corrective Action Plan.
CONDITION: The City of McKeesport contracted with a third-party vendor (A&H Equipment for the purchase of a street sweeper. The contract with the third-party vendor, which was procured through a cooperative purchasing group (COSTARS), exceeded the threshold for competitive procurement. The City was unable to provide documentation to verify that the third-party procurement contract was competitively procured, such as a bid evaluation and public solicitation. In addition, the City did not conduct a cost or price analysis for this procurement, which was in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. CRITERIA: Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance prescribes the bidding requirements for equipment, supplies, and work of any nature made by a non-federal entity whereby the cost exceeds the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. The cost of the street sweeper exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000. As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the City must maintain sufficient records 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. In addition, Section 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance requires the performance of a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. CAUSE: City personnel directly responsible for the oversight and execution of these procurements were not fully familiar with the procurement requirements as prescribed by Sections 2 CFR 200.318(i) and 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance. EFFECT: The City of McKeesport did not comply with the requirements of Sections 2 CFR 200.318(i) and 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance with regard to maintaining sufficient records to detail the history of procurement for the construction project and conducting a cost or price analysis for a procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. QUESTIONED COST: $268,975 RECOMMENDATION: I am recommending that City management implement, review and update annually as necessary, City federal financial policies and procedures, similar to those developed for use in the City’s Community Development Program to ensure In instances where the procurement cost incurred for goods and/or services exceeds the Uniform Guidance Simplified Acquisition, including such instances whereby the City is using a contract vehicle from a cooperative purchase network, that the City is in compliance with all applicable sections of the Uniform Guidance, in specific, Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance. In addition, I recommend that the City conduct a cost or price analysis for all procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000 before receiving bids or proposals in accordance with Section 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: The City concurs with the above noted finding and addresses this issue in the ‘Corrective Action Plan’ included within this report.
FINDING 2022-005 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Procurement Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): FY 2022 Pass-Through Entity: Department of the Treasury Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The City had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, noncompliance. Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is customarily set at $250,000. However, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold of $150,000 or less for when small purchase procedures may be used. Indiana Code provides that the proper purchasing method would be the bidding process, unless the purchase meets certain other qualifications. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 CITY OF MUNCIE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Six vendors fell within the simplified acquisition threshold. All six vendors were selected for testing. For three of the vendors tested, there were no requests for proposals received and no documentation to support the history of the procurement, including the rationale for the method of procurement, nor selection of the contract. In addition, there was no documentation that a cost or price analysis was performed for the three contracts. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. . . ." 2 CFR 200.324(a) states: "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 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use document procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. . . . INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 CITY OF MUNCIE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance award exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a non-competitive procurement can be used in accordance with § 200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: (1) Sealed bids. A procurement method in which bids are publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price) is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is the lowest in price. The sealed bids method is the preferred method for procuring construction, if the conditions. (i) In order for sealed bidding to be feasible, the following conditions should be present: (A) A complete, adequate, and realistic specification or purchase description is available; (B) Two or more responsible bidders are willing and able to compete effectively for the business; and (C) The procurement lends itself to a firm fixed price contract and the selection of the successful bidder can be made principally on the basis of price. (ii) If sealed bids are used, the following requirements apply: (A) Bids must be solicited from an adequate number of qualified sources, providing them sufficient response time prior to the date set for opening the bids, for local, and tribal governments, the invitation for bids must be publicly advertised; (B) The invitation for bids, which will include any specifications and pertinent attachments, must define the items or services in order for the bidder to properly respond; (C) All bids will be opened at the time and place prescribed in the invitation for bids, and for local and tribal governments, the bids must be opened publicly; (D) A firm fixed price contract award will be made in writing to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Where specified in bidding documents, factors such as discounts, transportation cost, and life cycle costs must be considered in determining which bid is lowest. Payment discounts will only be used to determine the low bid when prior experience indicates that such discounts are usually taken advantage of; and (E) Any or all bids may be rejected if there is a sound documented reason. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 24 CITY OF MUNCIE SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause The system of internal controls as established by the City was not properly implemented to ensure that goods and services that exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold were properly procured. A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the City. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the City's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, proper procurement procedures were not adhered to for all vendors. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City establish a proper system of internal controls, and develop policies and procedures to ensure proper procurement procedures are adhered to for all purchases of good and services paid with federal awards. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.324 notes, ?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.? Condition: For one of six (16.7%) procurements selected for testing exceeded the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000) and a cost or price analysis was not performed. We consider this to be an instance of noncompliance relating to the Procurement, Suspension, and Debarment compliance requirement. Statistical sampling was not used in making sample selections. Questioned Costs: N/A. Cause and Effect: Without cost or price analyses being performed, the Organization may overspend on products or services when compared to other vendors and the environment. Recommendation: We recommend the evaluation policies and procedures to ensure all procurement requirements are followed. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this Single Audit Finding and response is included in the Corrective Action Plan.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.324 notes, ?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.? Condition: For one of six (16.7%) procurements selected for testing exceeded the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000) and a cost or price analysis was not performed. We consider this to be an instance of noncompliance relating to the Procurement, Suspension, and Debarment compliance requirement. Statistical sampling was not used in making sample selections. Questioned Costs: N/A. Cause and Effect: Without cost or price analyses being performed, the Organization may overspend on products or services when compared to other vendors and the environment. Recommendation: We recommend the evaluation policies and procedures to ensure all procurement requirements are followed. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this Single Audit Finding and response is included in the Corrective Action Plan.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.324 notes, ?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.? Condition: For one of six (16.7%) procurements selected for testing exceeded the Simplified Acquisition Threshold ($250,000) and a cost or price analysis was not performed. We consider this to be an instance of noncompliance relating to the Procurement, Suspension, and Debarment compliance requirement. Statistical sampling was not used in making sample selections. Questioned Costs: N/A. Cause and Effect: Without cost or price analyses being performed, the Organization may overspend on products or services when compared to other vendors and the environment. Recommendation: We recommend the evaluation policies and procedures to ensure all procurement requirements are followed. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this Single Audit Finding and response is included in the Corrective Action Plan.
CONDITION: The City of McKeesport contracted with a third-party vendor (A&H Equipment for the purchase of a street sweeper. The contract with the third-party vendor, which was procured through a cooperative purchasing group (COSTARS), exceeded the threshold for competitive procurement. The City was unable to provide documentation to verify that the third-party procurement contract was competitively procured, such as a bid evaluation and public solicitation. In addition, the City did not conduct a cost or price analysis for this procurement, which was in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. CRITERIA: Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance prescribes the bidding requirements for equipment, supplies, and work of any nature made by a non-federal entity whereby the cost exceeds the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. The cost of the street sweeper exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold of $250,000. As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the City must maintain sufficient records 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. In addition, Section 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance requires the performance of a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. CAUSE: City personnel directly responsible for the oversight and execution of these procurements were not fully familiar with the procurement requirements as prescribed by Sections 2 CFR 200.318(i) and 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance. EFFECT: The City of McKeesport did not comply with the requirements of Sections 2 CFR 200.318(i) and 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance with regard to maintaining sufficient records to detail the history of procurement for the construction project and conducting a cost or price analysis for a procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold. QUESTIONED COST: $268,975 RECOMMENDATION: I am recommending that City management implement, review and update annually as necessary, City federal financial policies and procedures, similar to those developed for use in the City’s Community Development Program to ensure In instances where the procurement cost incurred for goods and/or services exceeds the Uniform Guidance Simplified Acquisition, including such instances whereby the City is using a contract vehicle from a cooperative purchase network, that the City is in compliance with all applicable sections of the Uniform Guidance, in specific, Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance. In addition, I recommend that the City conduct a cost or price analysis for all procurement in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000 before receiving bids or proposals in accordance with Section 2 CFR 200.324(a) of the Uniform Guidance. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: The City concurs with the above noted finding and addresses this issue in the ‘Corrective Action Plan’ included within this report.
2022 – 003 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: U.S. Department Treasury Federal Program Name: Coronavirus State & Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: SLFRP3738 11/30/2021 Award Period: March 3, 2021 through December 31, 2024 Type of Finding: • Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance • Other Matter Criteria or specific requirement: Uniform Grant Guidance (2 CFR 200.318, 2 CFR 200.319, 2 CFR 200.324, 2 CFR 180.220, and 2 CFR 200.320,) requires a non-federal entity to maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement, the providing of full and open competition, the performing of cost or price analysis, and prohibits the non-federal entity to contract or make subawards to parties that are suspended or debarred (covered transactions over $25,000). These records will include the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, the basis for the contract price, how full and open competition was provided, the cost or price analysis performed, and verification the vendor is not suspended or debarred through the SAMs exclusion list, collecting of certification from the entity, or by adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with the entity. Procurement methods used must be appropriate based on the dollar amount and conditions specified. Condition: Procurement methods for certain federal award purchases were not adequately documented or appropriately selected in accordance with the County’s procurement policy. In addition, the County did not maintain records the vendor was not suspended or debarred prior to entering into the transactions. Questioned costs: Unknown Context: 3 of 6 tested for procurement documentation and 5 of 5 tested for suspension and debarment documentation. Cause: With new federal funding opportunities due to the pandemic, and new guidance related to those grants, proper documentation was not retained. Effect: May result in a disallowed cost if grant requirements are not followed. Repeat Finding: This is a repeat finding. Prior year finding numbers were 2021-004 and 2021-005. Recommendation: We recommend the County carefully review federal procurement requirements for proper documentation needed. The County should consider use of a Federal procurement checklist. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Federal Program Name: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 1505-0271; 2021 Award Period: March 3, 2021 through December 31, 2024 Type of Finding: ? Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance ? Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: Uniform Grant Guidance (2 CFR 200.318, 2 CFR 200.319, 2 CFR 200.324 and 2 CFR 180.220) requires a non-federal entity to maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement, the providing of full and open competition, the performing of cost or price analysis, and prohibits the non-federal entity to contract or make subawards to parties that are suspended or debarred. These records will include the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, the basis for the contract price, how full and open competition was provided, the cost or price analysis performed, and verification the vendor is not suspended or debarred through the SAMs exclusion list, collecting of certification from the entity, or by adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with the entity. Condition: Procurement methods for certain federal award purchases were not adequately documented and the County did not verify the vendor was not suspended or debarred prior to entering into the transactions. Questioned costs: None Context: 3 of 5 tested for procurement documentation and 6 of 6 tested for suspension and debarment documentation. Cause: Lack of documentation retained over procurement rationale or cost analysis and lack of knowledge on suspension and debarment policy. Effect: Purchases are not properly documented to meet the Federal procurement requirements. CLA was able to determine the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Repeat Finding: This finding is a repeat of a finding in the prior year on a different program. Prior year finding number was 2021-003. Recommendation: We recommend the County carefully review federal procurement requirements for proper documentation needed. The County should consider use of a Federal procurement checklist. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
2022 – 003 Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: U.S. Department Treasury Federal Program Name: Coronavirus State & Local Fiscal Recovery Fund Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: SLFRP3738 11/30/2021 Award Period: March 3, 2021 through December 31, 2024 Type of Finding: • Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance • Other Matter Criteria or specific requirement: Uniform Grant Guidance (2 CFR 200.318, 2 CFR 200.319, 2 CFR 200.324, 2 CFR 180.220, and 2 CFR 200.320,) requires a non-federal entity to maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement, the providing of full and open competition, the performing of cost or price analysis, and prohibits the non-federal entity to contract or make subawards to parties that are suspended or debarred (covered transactions over $25,000). These records will include the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, the basis for the contract price, how full and open competition was provided, the cost or price analysis performed, and verification the vendor is not suspended or debarred through the SAMs exclusion list, collecting of certification from the entity, or by adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with the entity. Procurement methods used must be appropriate based on the dollar amount and conditions specified. Condition: Procurement methods for certain federal award purchases were not adequately documented or appropriately selected in accordance with the County’s procurement policy. In addition, the County did not maintain records the vendor was not suspended or debarred prior to entering into the transactions. Questioned costs: Unknown Context: 3 of 6 tested for procurement documentation and 5 of 5 tested for suspension and debarment documentation. Cause: With new federal funding opportunities due to the pandemic, and new guidance related to those grants, proper documentation was not retained. Effect: May result in a disallowed cost if grant requirements are not followed. Repeat Finding: This is a repeat finding. Prior year finding numbers were 2021-004 and 2021-005. Recommendation: We recommend the County carefully review federal procurement requirements for proper documentation needed. The County should consider use of a Federal procurement checklist. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Federal Program Name: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 1505-0271; 2021 Award Period: March 3, 2021 through December 31, 2024 Type of Finding: ? Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance ? Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: Uniform Grant Guidance (2 CFR 200.318, 2 CFR 200.319, 2 CFR 200.324 and 2 CFR 180.220) requires a non-federal entity to maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement, the providing of full and open competition, the performing of cost or price analysis, and prohibits the non-federal entity to contract or make subawards to parties that are suspended or debarred. These records will include the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, the basis for the contract price, how full and open competition was provided, the cost or price analysis performed, and verification the vendor is not suspended or debarred through the SAMs exclusion list, collecting of certification from the entity, or by adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with the entity. Condition: Procurement methods for certain federal award purchases were not adequately documented and the County did not verify the vendor was not suspended or debarred prior to entering into the transactions. Questioned costs: None Context: 3 of 5 tested for procurement documentation and 6 of 6 tested for suspension and debarment documentation. Cause: Lack of documentation retained over procurement rationale or cost analysis and lack of knowledge on suspension and debarment policy. Effect: Purchases are not properly documented to meet the Federal procurement requirements. CLA was able to determine the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Repeat Finding: This finding is a repeat of a finding in the prior year on a different program. Prior year finding number was 2021-003. Recommendation: We recommend the County carefully review federal procurement requirements for proper documentation needed. The County should consider use of a Federal procurement checklist. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
2022-002—Unallowable Gift Card Disbursements Charged to Federal Program Type of Finding: (F) Instance of Noncompliance Related to Federal Awards Funding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services AL #: 93.231 – COVID-19: Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity Award #: Various Award Period: 09/30/2021 – 09/29/2026 Estimated Questioned Costs: $15,300 Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Statement of Condition AAIHB distributed gift cards to both salaried employees and independent contractors as a gesture of appreciation for working extended hours related to COVID-19 contact tracing efforts. The total value of the gift cards was approximately $15,300 and was charged to the COVID-19: Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity grant (AL #93.231). For contractors, these gift cards were provided in addition to their regular compensation. The gift card disbursements were not processed through payroll nor formalized in contract terms, and there is no documentation indicating the entity obtained approval from the awarding agency. Criteria In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.403, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and conform to limitations set forth in federal regulations. Per 2 CFR § 200.421(e)(3), the cost of gifts—including cash or cash equivalents such as gift cards—is generally unallowable. Compensation for employees must comply with 2 CFR § 200.430, including support through written policies and documentation of time and effort. Contractor payments must align with procurement standards in 2 CFR § 200.318–200.324 and be governed by written contracts. Effect The use of federal funds to provide gift cards constitutes an unallowable cost under Uniform Guidance. The questioned amount may be subject to repayment to the awarding agency or passthrough entity. Cause The auditee sought to recognize the extraordinary efforts of personnel during the COVID-19 public health response. However, they were unaware that the use of gift cards for this purpose was inconsistent with Uniform Guidance and lacked prior approval or supporting policy. Recommendation We recommend the auditee discontinue the use of federal funds for gift card distributions. All compensation for employees should be processed through payroll, supported by appropriate documentation and internal policies. Payments to contractors should be governed by written contracts and comply with applicable procurement standards. If the auditee believes these costs are justifiable, they should consult the awarding agency for a determination and, if necessary, reimburse the federal award.