2024-003 Program: Nationally Significant Freight and Highway Projects Financial Assistance Listing Number: 20.934 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass-through: California Department of Transportation Award Year: Multiple Grant Award Number: Multiple Compliance Requirements: Special Tests and Provisions – Wage Rate Requirements Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Instance of Noncompliance Criteria: All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors to work on construction contracts in excess of $2,000 financed by federal assistance funds must be paid wages not less than those established for the locality of the project (prevailing wage rates) by the Department of Labor (DOL) 40 USC 3141–3144, 3146, and 3147. Nonfederal entities shall include in their construction contracts subject to the Wage Rate Requirements a provision that the contractor or subcontractor comply with those requirements and the DOL regulations (29 CFR Part 5, Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contacts Governing Federally Financed and Assisted Construction). This includes a requirement for the contractor or subcontractor to submit to the nonfederal entity weekly, for each week in which any contract work is performed, a copy of the payroll and a statement of compliance (certified payrolls) (29 CFR sections 5.5 and 5.6; the A-102 Common Rule (section 36(i)(5)); OMB Circular A-110 (2 CFR Part 215, Appendix A, Contract Provisions); 2 CFR Part 176, Subpart C; and 2 CFR section 200.326. 2 CFR 200.303, the non-Federal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. This includes internal controls over maintaining records of the receipt and review of certified payrolls. Condition: In March 2024, the City implemented procedural changes to their certified payroll review process. Until February 2024, the City did not retain evidence to document the individual who reviewed the certified payroll for each week in which work was performed by construction contractors and subcontractors. Due to backlog, the City was not able to catch up on certifications until August 2024 which was after the fiscal year had ended. For fifty-four (54) of sixty (60) weeks of certified payroll submissions selected for testing, we noted that the City did not review the contractors’ submissions of certified payroll in a timely manner. For six (6) out of sixty (60) weeks of certified payroll submissions selected, we noted that a statement of non-performance was submitted. However, the tracking spreadsheet provided to the City by its 3rd party project manager indicated that work had been performed. For nineteen (19) out of sixty (60) weeks of certified payroll submissions selected, we noted that the contractor or subcontractor had not submitted the weekly certified payroll in a timely manner. The contractor had submitted their certified payroll several weeks after the week of work performed. Cause: The City’s procedures did not include documenting the review of the certified payroll received. In addition, the City did not have the necessary internal controls in place to ensure the accuracy of the tracking of work weeks being performed as well as the contractor’s and subcontractor’s timely submittal of certified payroll. Effect: Ineffective controls over this area of compliance could result in noncompliance with the wage rate compliance requirements. Questioned Costs: No questioned costs were identified as a result of our procedures. Context/Sampling: Sampling was used. We selected sixty (60) out of all weeks indicated as work weeks for the City’s project for testing. However, due to the condition noted above, the population of work weeks could not be verified. Repeat Finding from the Prior Year(s): Yes, 2023-003. Recommendation: We recommend that the City strengthen its internal controls to ensure that timely reviews of certified payroll submissions are being performed by the City. This could include performing procedures to ensure that information being provided to the City by its consultant project managers is accurate and that the required certified payroll is being submitted by contractors and subcontractors in a timely manner. View of Responsible Official and Planned Corrective Actions The City concurs with the finding. See separate corrective action plan.
WIC Special Supplemental Nutrition Program for Women, Infants, and Children Assistance Listing No. 10.557 U.S. Department of Agriculture Criteria or Specific Requirement – Procurement (45 CFR 200.318-200.326) Condition - The Health System, prior to fiscal year 2025, did not have a comprehensive procurement policy that is in line with Uniform Guidance requirements. In addition, the Health System entered into various professional services contracts for marketing, advertising, and information dissemination that do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold and are considered micro-purchases, but did not maintain appropriate documentation to document the price reasonableness based on research, experience, and purchase history to support its procurement decisions. Questioned Costs - None Context - We tested one out of a total of four contracts that were considered micro-purchases. The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. During our testing of procurement requirements, the two vendor contracts tested over the micro-purchase threshold did not have appropriate documentation to evidence the basis of vendor selection (documentation of the price reasonableness based on research, experience, and purchase history). Effect - Micro-purchases were made without appropriate documentation to comply with Uniform Guidance requirements. Cause - The Health System did not have a comprehensive procurement policy that is in line with Uniform Guidance requirements. Adequate supporting documentation on the procurements were not obtained or maintained within vendor files and vendor contracts do not contain the necessary contract provision and language required by the Uniform Guidance. Repeat Finding - Yes Recommendation - We recommend the Health System revisit controls over this compliance requirement to ensure that appropriate documentation is gathered and retained within its procurement files to support all Federally funded purchasing decisions. We also recommend the Organization perform a comprehensive review of its procurement policy and ensure that it is in compliance and in-line with the procurement requirements of the Uniform Guidance. Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions – The Organization has developed and implemented a policy and checklist to maintain written documentation of vendor selection and procurement process, along with the review and approval process required under the Uniform Guidance requirements.
Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Criteria Procurement Non-federal entities other than states, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of states, must follow specific procurement standards set out in 2 CFR sections 200.317 through 200.327, which includes documenting the procurement methods used for vendor selection. These procedures are designed to ensure fair competition, cost-effectiveness, and federal requirements. These procurement standards require, among other provisions, that a non-federal entity must: 1. Meet the general procurement standards in 2 CFR Section 200.318, which include oversight of contractors’ performance, maintaining written standards of conduct for employees involved in contracting, awarding contracts only to reliable contractors, and maintaining records to document the history of procurement. 2. Conduct all procurement transactions for the acquisition of property or services under a federal award in a manner providing full and open competition consistent with the standards of 2 CFR section 200.320. 3. Use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of 2 CFR 200.317 to 320. 2 CFR 200.320 enumerates below the different procurement methods that a non-federal entity should use: a) The micro-purchase and small purchase methods only for procurements that meet the applicable criteria under 2 CFR sections 200.320(a) (1) and (2). Under the micro-purchase method, the aggregate dollar amount does not exceed $50,000. b) Small purchase procedures are used for purchases that exceed the micro-purchase amount but do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. The non-Federal entity is responsible for determining an appropriate simplified acquisition threshold based on internal controls, an evaluation of risk and its documented procurement procedures which must not exceed the threshold established in the FAR. When applicable, a lower simplified acquisition threshold used by the non-Federal entity must be authorized or not prohibited under State, local, or tribal laws or regulations. c) Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive quotations if the non-federal entity considers the price to be reasonable (2 CFR section 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 section 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 section 200.320(b) (1); the competitive proposals method under the conditions specified in 2 CFR section 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 section 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 section 200.323(a)). The cost plus a percentage of cost and percentage of construction cost methods of contracting must not be used (2 CFR section 200.323(b)). 6. Ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes applicable provisions required by 2 CFR section 200.326. These provisions are described in Appendix II to 2 CFR Part 200, “Contract Provisions for Non-Federal Entity Contracts Under Federal Awards.” Suspension and Debarment Non-federal entities are prohibited from contracting with or making subawards under covered transactions to parties that are suspended or debarred. “Covered transactions” include 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). Condition During our audit, MARTA was unable to provide purchase order documentation or contract for eight samples that are above $500. Per current procurement policy, “Purchases of supplies, services, and equipment costing more than five hundred ($500) shall be made by purchase order, unless authorized by a signed contract or Mountain Transit Board Approval”. During our audit, MARTA was unable to provide supporting documentation to demonstrate that the required price or rate quotations for those purchases or contracts with contract amounts above $10,000 were obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources and maintained the documentation to support its conclusion. These were noted for two samples tested. The expenditure paid ranged from $10,000 to $36,000 in 2024. During our audit, MARTA was unable to provide supporting documentation to demonstrate that the process of verifying if vendors are not suspended or debarred was performed on two vendors tested. The expenditure paid to these vendors ranged from $109,000 to $647,000 in 2024. Cause MARTA did not follow its existing purchasing policy and procedures, and lack of procedures in maintaining appropriate records of vendor selection and compliance with procurement standards. Effect The absence of procurement documentation raises the risk of non-compliance with federal regulations, which could lead to potential disallowances or unnecessary sanctions. Questioned Costs None Recommendation MARTA should strengthen its internal controls over procurement by ensuring that all procurement activities, particularly significant expenditures, are properly documented. This includes retaining evidence that procurement methods required by the Uniform Guidance were followed, such as bids, contracts, or justifications for sole-source vendors. MARTA should also conduct training for staff involved in procurement to ensure awareness and adherence to the policies. Regular internal audits may be implemented to verify compliance with procurement procedures. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action MARTA is in the process of updating the Procurement Policy. MARTA will ensure that updated policies and procedures will be implemented to address compliance and documentation requirements for small and micro-purchases, sole-source, and informal processes. The updated Procurement Policy will be brought to the October 2025 Board of Directors meeting for Board review or approval. Personnel responsible: Sandy Benson, General Manager Anticipated completion date: October 2025
Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Criteria Procurement Non-federal entities other than states, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of states, must follow specific procurement standards set out in 2 CFR sections 200.317 through 200.327, which includes documenting the procurement methods used for vendor selection. These procedures are designed to ensure fair competition, cost-effectiveness, and federal requirements. These procurement standards require, among other provisions, that a non-federal entity must: 1. Meet the general procurement standards in 2 CFR Section 200.318, which include oversight of contractors’ performance, maintaining written standards of conduct for employees involved in contracting, awarding contracts only to reliable contractors, and maintaining records to document the history of procurement. 2. Conduct all procurement transactions for the acquisition of property or services under a federal award in a manner providing full and open competition consistent with the standards of 2 CFR section 200.320. 3. Use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of 2 CFR 200.317 to 320. 2 CFR 200.320 enumerates below the different procurement methods that a non-federal entity should use: a) The micro-purchase and small purchase methods only for procurements that meet the applicable criteria under 2 CFR sections 200.320(a) (1) and (2). Under the micro-purchase method, the aggregate dollar amount does not exceed $50,000. b) Small purchase procedures are used for purchases that exceed the micro-purchase amount but do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. The non-Federal entity is responsible for determining an appropriate simplified acquisition threshold based on internal controls, an evaluation of risk and its documented procurement procedures which must not exceed the threshold established in the FAR. When applicable, a lower simplified acquisition threshold used by the non-Federal entity must be authorized or not prohibited under State, local, or tribal laws or regulations. c) Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive quotations if the non-federal entity considers the price to be reasonable (2 CFR section 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 section 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 section 200.320(b) (1); the competitive proposals method under the conditions specified in 2 CFR section 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 section 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 section 200.323(a)). The cost plus a percentage of cost and percentage of construction cost methods of contracting must not be used (2 CFR section 200.323(b)). 6. Ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes applicable provisions required by 2 CFR section 200.326. These provisions are described in Appendix II to 2 CFR Part 200, “Contract Provisions for Non-Federal Entity Contracts Under Federal Awards.” Suspension and Debarment Non-federal entities are prohibited from contracting with or making subawards under covered transactions to parties that are suspended or debarred. “Covered transactions” include 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). Condition During our audit, MARTA was unable to provide purchase order documentation or contract for eight samples that are above $500. Per current procurement policy, “Purchases of supplies, services, and equipment costing more than five hundred ($500) shall be made by purchase order, unless authorized by a signed contract or Mountain Transit Board Approval”. During our audit, MARTA was unable to provide supporting documentation to demonstrate that the required price or rate quotations for those purchases or contracts with contract amounts above $10,000 were obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources and maintained the documentation to support its conclusion. These were noted for two samples tested. The expenditure paid ranged from $10,000 to $36,000 in 2024. During our audit, MARTA was unable to provide supporting documentation to demonstrate that the process of verifying if vendors are not suspended or debarred was performed on two vendors tested. The expenditure paid to these vendors ranged from $109,000 to $647,000 in 2024. Cause MARTA did not follow its existing purchasing policy and procedures, and lack of procedures in maintaining appropriate records of vendor selection and compliance with procurement standards. Effect The absence of procurement documentation raises the risk of non-compliance with federal regulations, which could lead to potential disallowances or unnecessary sanctions. Questioned Costs None Recommendation MARTA should strengthen its internal controls over procurement by ensuring that all procurement activities, particularly significant expenditures, are properly documented. This includes retaining evidence that procurement methods required by the Uniform Guidance were followed, such as bids, contracts, or justifications for sole-source vendors. MARTA should also conduct training for staff involved in procurement to ensure awareness and adherence to the policies. Regular internal audits may be implemented to verify compliance with procurement procedures. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action MARTA is in the process of updating the Procurement Policy. MARTA will ensure that updated policies and procedures will be implemented to address compliance and documentation requirements for small and micro-purchases, sole-source, and informal processes. The updated Procurement Policy will be brought to the October 2025 Board of Directors meeting for Board review or approval. Personnel responsible: Sandy Benson, General Manager Anticipated completion date: October 2025
Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Criteria Procurement Non-federal entities other than states, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of states, must follow specific procurement standards set out in 2 CFR sections 200.317 through 200.327, which includes documenting the procurement methods used for vendor selection. These procedures are designed to ensure fair competition, cost-effectiveness, and federal requirements. These procurement standards require, among other provisions, that a non-federal entity must: 1. Meet the general procurement standards in 2 CFR Section 200.318, which include oversight of contractors’ performance, maintaining written standards of conduct for employees involved in contracting, awarding contracts only to reliable contractors, and maintaining records to document the history of procurement. 2. Conduct all procurement transactions for the acquisition of property or services under a federal award in a manner providing full and open competition consistent with the standards of 2 CFR section 200.320. 3. Use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of 2 CFR 200.317 to 320. 2 CFR 200.320 enumerates below the different procurement methods that a non-federal entity should use: a) The micro-purchase and small purchase methods only for procurements that meet the applicable criteria under 2 CFR sections 200.320(a) (1) and (2). Under the micro-purchase method, the aggregate dollar amount does not exceed $50,000. b) Small purchase procedures are used for purchases that exceed the micro-purchase amount but do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. The non-Federal entity is responsible for determining an appropriate simplified acquisition threshold based on internal controls, an evaluation of risk and its documented procurement procedures which must not exceed the threshold established in the FAR. When applicable, a lower simplified acquisition threshold used by the non-Federal entity must be authorized or not prohibited under State, local, or tribal laws or regulations. c) Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive quotations if the non-federal entity considers the price to be reasonable (2 CFR section 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 section 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 section 200.320(b) (1); the competitive proposals method under the conditions specified in 2 CFR section 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 section 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 section 200.323(a)). The cost plus a percentage of cost and percentage of construction cost methods of contracting must not be used (2 CFR section 200.323(b)). 6. Ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes applicable provisions required by 2 CFR section 200.326. These provisions are described in Appendix II to 2 CFR Part 200, “Contract Provisions for Non-Federal Entity Contracts Under Federal Awards.” Suspension and Debarment Non-federal entities are prohibited from contracting with or making subawards under covered transactions to parties that are suspended or debarred. “Covered transactions” include 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). Condition During our audit, MARTA was unable to provide purchase order documentation or contract for eight samples that are above $500. Per current procurement policy, “Purchases of supplies, services, and equipment costing more than five hundred ($500) shall be made by purchase order, unless authorized by a signed contract or Mountain Transit Board Approval”. During our audit, MARTA was unable to provide supporting documentation to demonstrate that the required price or rate quotations for those purchases or contracts with contract amounts above $10,000 were obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources and maintained the documentation to support its conclusion. These were noted for two samples tested. The expenditure paid ranged from $10,000 to $36,000 in 2024. During our audit, MARTA was unable to provide supporting documentation to demonstrate that the process of verifying if vendors are not suspended or debarred was performed on two vendors tested. The expenditure paid to these vendors ranged from $109,000 to $647,000 in 2024. Cause MARTA did not follow its existing purchasing policy and procedures, and lack of procedures in maintaining appropriate records of vendor selection and compliance with procurement standards. Effect The absence of procurement documentation raises the risk of non-compliance with federal regulations, which could lead to potential disallowances or unnecessary sanctions. Questioned Costs None Recommendation MARTA should strengthen its internal controls over procurement by ensuring that all procurement activities, particularly significant expenditures, are properly documented. This includes retaining evidence that procurement methods required by the Uniform Guidance were followed, such as bids, contracts, or justifications for sole-source vendors. MARTA should also conduct training for staff involved in procurement to ensure awareness and adherence to the policies. Regular internal audits may be implemented to verify compliance with procurement procedures. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action MARTA is in the process of updating the Procurement Policy. MARTA will ensure that updated policies and procedures will be implemented to address compliance and documentation requirements for small and micro-purchases, sole-source, and informal processes. The updated Procurement Policy will be brought to the October 2025 Board of Directors meeting for Board review or approval. Personnel responsible: Sandy Benson, General Manager Anticipated completion date: October 2025
2024 – 002 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Justice Federal Program Title: Crime Victim Assistance Federal Assistance Listing Number: 16.575 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 15POVC23GG00443ASSI-2024 Pass-Through Agency: Minnesota Office of Justice Programs Pass-Through Number(s): A-CVS-2024-AMS-077 Award Period: 10/01/2023 to 09/30/2025 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Major Federal Programs and Other Matters Criteria or Specific Requirement: Nonfederal entities other than states, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of states, must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. Condition: The Organization did not have a written procurement policy in accordance with Uniform Guidance for a portion of the year. In addition, during our testing, we noted the Organization did not apply the proper procurement procedures for two vendors as they did not perform appropriate procedures nor retain adequate documentation in accordance with Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: Unknown Context: Two out of the two procurement selections did not have procurement procedures followed. Cause: Vendors were procured prior to the implementation of a formal procurement policy; therefore, proper documentation was not retained as of the procurement date. Effect: Potential effect of noncompliance with Uniform Guidance when procuring goods and services for expenditures over federal awards. Repeat Finding: This is a repeat finding. Recommendation: The Organization should continue to apply its current procurement policy to new and existing vendors to ensure proper documentation is retained in accordance with said procurement policy and SA UG. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: The Organization will apply its current procurement policy to new and existing vendors in order to comply with applicable procurement requirements.
Condition: The Organization’s written policies and procedures related to financial management and procurement do not meet the requirements of 2 CFR 200, Subpart D and Subpart E. Criteria: According to 2 CFR Section 200.302.b and 2 CFR Section 200.305 of the Uniform Guidance, the Organization is required to have a written financial management policy. Additionally, according to 2 CFR Section 200.317 – 200.326, the Organization is required to have a written procurement policy. Cause: The Organization was unaware of requirements regarding policies and procedures outlined in the Uniform Guidance. Effect: Written policies necessary for non-Federal entities receiving federal funds were not in place. Repeat Finding: Yes Questioned Costs: None reported Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization update their written policies and procedures that meet the requirements of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: We concur with the auditor’s finding and will update the Organization’s written policies and procedures for the Uniform Guidance requirements.
Condition: The Organization did not have documentation related to the suspension and debarment testing performed on vendors. Criteria: According to 2 CFR Section 200.318 and 2 CFR Section 200.326 of the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities other than states must follow procurement standards when operating federal programs and the procurement procedures required depend on the amount of the transaction. Cause: The Organization was in the process of implementing the draft procurement policy as of June 30, 2024. The policy is properly designed and follows the Uniform Guidance. However, the policy was not implemented during the period under audit. Effect: There was an increased risk that the Organization was contracting and awarding contracts to suspended or debarred vendors.. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: None reported Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization implement a process to perform suspension and debarment testing as required by their procurement policy, and that as part of this process they maintain adequate supporting documentation and records to document suspension and debarment and the procedures performed to comply with the applicable CFR sections. This could include the use of standard forms and templates for suspension and debarment testing. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: We concur with the auditor’s finding and will develop an updated procurement policy that includes maintaining adequate supporting documentation and records regarding suspension and debarment procedures performed.
Condition: The Organization’s written policies and procedures related to financial management and procurement do not meet the requirements of 2 CFR 200, Subpart D and Subpart E. Criteria: According to 2 CFR Section 200.302.b and 2 CFR Section 200.305 of the Uniform Guidance, the Organization is required to have a written financial management policy. Additionally, according to 2 CFR Section 200.317 – 200.326, the Organization is required to have a written procurement policy. Cause: The Organization was unaware of requirements regarding policies and procedures outlined in the Uniform Guidance. Effect: Written policies necessary for non-Federal entities receiving federal funds were not in place. Repeat Finding: Yes Questioned Costs: None reported Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization update their written policies and procedures that meet the requirements of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: We concur with the auditor’s finding and will update the Organization’s written policies and procedures for the Uniform Guidance requirements.
Condition: The Organization did not have documentation related to the suspension and debarment testing performed on vendors. Criteria: According to 2 CFR Section 200.318 and 2 CFR Section 200.326 of the Uniform Guidance, non-federal entities other than states must follow procurement standards when operating federal programs and the procurement procedures required depend on the amount of the transaction. Cause: The Organization was in the process of implementing the draft procurement policy as of June 30, 2024. The policy is properly designed and follows the Uniform Guidance. However, the policy was not implemented during the period under audit. Effect: There was an increased risk that the Organization was contracting and awarding contracts to suspended or debarred vendors.. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: None reported Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization implement a process to perform suspension and debarment testing as required by their procurement policy, and that as part of this process they maintain adequate supporting documentation and records to document suspension and debarment and the procedures performed to comply with the applicable CFR sections. This could include the use of standard forms and templates for suspension and debarment testing. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: We concur with the auditor’s finding and will develop an updated procurement policy that includes maintaining adequate supporting documentation and records regarding suspension and debarment procedures performed.
2 CFR § 3474.1 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Education for 2 CFR part 200 of the Uniform Guidance. 2 CFR §§ 200.318 through 200.326 of the Uniform Guidance outline procurement requirements for all non-payroll direct expenditures. Entities expending federal monies are required to follow Uniform Guidance procurement standards. 2 CFR 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. The School District considered the contracts with Educational Service Centers to be noncompetitive procurements; however, the School District was unable to provide documentation that they met the criteria established in 2 CFR 200.320(c) to be considered as such. Due to a lack of internal controls over federal procurement documentation, the District did not properly maintain required supporting documentation. Failure to follow federal procurement standards, may result in the misuse of public funds, loss of "low risk auditee" status, increased audit expenses, loss of future federal awards, findings for recovery or other audit adjustments. The School District should review and follow the established Procurement policy to ensure proper procurement procedures are followed and sufficiently documented.
2 CFR § 3474.1 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Education for 2 CFR part 200 of the Uniform Guidance. 2 CFR §§ 200.318 through 200.326 of the Uniform Guidance outline procurement requirements for all non-payroll direct expenditures. Entities expending federal monies are required to follow Uniform Guidance procurement standards. 2 CFR 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. The School District considered the contracts with Educational Service Centers to be noncompetitive procurements; however, the School District was unable to provide documentation that they met the criteria established in 2 CFR 200.320(c) to be considered as such. Due to a lack of internal controls over federal procurement documentation, the District did not properly maintain required supporting documentation. Failure to follow federal procurement standards, may result in the misuse of public funds, loss of "low risk auditee" status, increased audit expenses, loss of future federal awards, findings for recovery or other audit adjustments. The School District should review and follow the established Procurement policy to ensure proper procurement procedures are followed and sufficiently documented.
2 CFR § 3474.1 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Education for 2 CFR part 200 of the Uniform Guidance. 2 CFR §§ 200.318 through 200.326 of the Uniform Guidance outline procurement requirements for all non-payroll direct expenditures. Entities expending federal monies are required to follow Uniform Guidance procurement standards. 2 CFR 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. The School District considered the contracts with Educational Service Centers to be noncompetitive procurements; however, the School District was unable to provide documentation that they met the criteria established in 2 CFR 200.320(c) to be considered as such. Due to a lack of internal controls over federal procurement documentation, the District did not properly maintain required supporting documentation. Failure to follow federal procurement standards, may result in the misuse of public funds, loss of "low risk auditee" status, increased audit expenses, loss of future federal awards, findings for recovery or other audit adjustments. The School District should review and follow the established Procurement policy to ensure proper procurement procedures are followed and sufficiently documented.
2024-003 Wage Rate Compliance CFDA Title: Education Stabilization Fund CFDA Number: 84.425 Federal Award Number and Year: 2021 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through Entity: Montana Office of Public Instruction Condition: The District did not comply with the wage rate compliance related to construction using Education Stabilization Fund (ESSER) Grant monies. Context: During the testing of significant claims for the ESSER major programs related to construction, we noted claims in which there should be contracts in place and that the wage rate requirements would apply. Criteria: Section 7007 construction funds, as well as any Section 7002 or 7003(b) funds spent for construction or minor remodeling, are subject to Wage Rate Requirements (20 USC 1232b). Compliance Requirement – All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors to work on construction contracts in excess of $2,000 financed by Federal assistance funds must be paid wages not less than those established for the locality of the project (prevailing wage rates) by the Department of Labor (DOL) (40 USC 3141-3144, 3146, and 3147). Non-federal entities shall include in their construction contracts subject to the Wage Rate Requirements (which still may be referenced as the Davis-Bacon Act) a provision that the contractor or subcontractor comply with those requirements and the DOL regulations (29 CFR part 5, Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contacts Governing Federally Financed and Assisted Construction). This includes a requirement for the contractor or subcontractor to submit to the non-Federal entity weekly, for each week in which any contract work is performed, a copy of the payroll and a statement of compliance (certified payrolls) (29 CFR sections 5.5 and 5.6; the A-102 Common Rule (section 36(i)(5)); OMB Circular A-110 (2 CFR part 215, Appendix A, Contract Provisions); 2 CFR part 176, subpart C; and 2 CFR section 200.326). Effect: Noncompliance with the Wage Rate Requirement for construction paid for out of the ESSER Grants. Cause: The District was not aware of the requirement. Recommendation: The District should implement internal controls to determine the federal compliance requirements of all federal funds received. In addition, procedures should be implemented to ensure any federal funds received in which the Wage Rate Requirement is required the following are implemented: 1. Any construction vendor is by contract, and that contract includes the Prevailing Wage clauses for the contractors and subcontractors. 2. The weekly certified payrolls are submitted to the District.
2024-003 Wage Rate Compliance CFDA Title: Education Stabilization Fund CFDA Number: 84.425 Federal Award Number and Year: 2021 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through Entity: Montana Office of Public Instruction Condition: The District did not comply with the wage rate compliance related to construction using Education Stabilization Fund (ESSER) Grant monies. Context: During the testing of significant claims for the ESSER major programs related to construction, we noted claims in which there should be contracts in place and that the wage rate requirements would apply. Criteria: Section 7007 construction funds, as well as any Section 7002 or 7003(b) funds spent for construction or minor remodeling, are subject to Wage Rate Requirements (20 USC 1232b). Compliance Requirement – All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors to work on construction contracts in excess of $2,000 financed by Federal assistance funds must be paid wages not less than those established for the locality of the project (prevailing wage rates) by the Department of Labor (DOL) (40 USC 3141-3144, 3146, and 3147). Non-federal entities shall include in their construction contracts subject to the Wage Rate Requirements (which still may be referenced as the Davis-Bacon Act) a provision that the contractor or subcontractor comply with those requirements and the DOL regulations (29 CFR part 5, Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contacts Governing Federally Financed and Assisted Construction). This includes a requirement for the contractor or subcontractor to submit to the non-Federal entity weekly, for each week in which any contract work is performed, a copy of the payroll and a statement of compliance (certified payrolls) (29 CFR sections 5.5 and 5.6; the A-102 Common Rule (section 36(i)(5)); OMB Circular A-110 (2 CFR part 215, Appendix A, Contract Provisions); 2 CFR part 176, subpart C; and 2 CFR section 200.326). Effect: Noncompliance with the Wage Rate Requirement for construction paid for out of the ESSER Grants. Cause: The District was not aware of the requirement. Recommendation: The District should implement internal controls to determine the federal compliance requirements of all federal funds received. In addition, procedures should be implemented to ensure any federal funds received in which the Wage Rate Requirement is required the following are implemented: 1. Any construction vendor is by contract, and that contract includes the Prevailing Wage clauses for the contractors and subcontractors. 2. The weekly certified payrolls are submitted to the District.
2024-003 Wage Rate Compliance CFDA Title: Education Stabilization Fund CFDA Number: 84.425 Federal Award Number and Year: 2021 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through Entity: Montana Office of Public Instruction Condition: The District did not comply with the wage rate compliance related to construction using Education Stabilization Fund (ESSER) Grant monies. Context: During the testing of significant claims for the ESSER major programs related to construction, we noted claims in which there should be contracts in place and that the wage rate requirements would apply. Criteria: Section 7007 construction funds, as well as any Section 7002 or 7003(b) funds spent for construction or minor remodeling, are subject to Wage Rate Requirements (20 USC 1232b). Compliance Requirement – All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors to work on construction contracts in excess of $2,000 financed by Federal assistance funds must be paid wages not less than those established for the locality of the project (prevailing wage rates) by the Department of Labor (DOL) (40 USC 3141-3144, 3146, and 3147). Non-federal entities shall include in their construction contracts subject to the Wage Rate Requirements (which still may be referenced as the Davis-Bacon Act) a provision that the contractor or subcontractor comply with those requirements and the DOL regulations (29 CFR part 5, Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contacts Governing Federally Financed and Assisted Construction). This includes a requirement for the contractor or subcontractor to submit to the non-Federal entity weekly, for each week in which any contract work is performed, a copy of the payroll and a statement of compliance (certified payrolls) (29 CFR sections 5.5 and 5.6; the A-102 Common Rule (section 36(i)(5)); OMB Circular A-110 (2 CFR part 215, Appendix A, Contract Provisions); 2 CFR part 176, subpart C; and 2 CFR section 200.326). Effect: Noncompliance with the Wage Rate Requirement for construction paid for out of the ESSER Grants. Cause: The District was not aware of the requirement. Recommendation: The District should implement internal controls to determine the federal compliance requirements of all federal funds received. In addition, procedures should be implemented to ensure any federal funds received in which the Wage Rate Requirement is required the following are implemented: 1. Any construction vendor is by contract, and that contract includes the Prevailing Wage clauses for the contractors and subcontractors. 2. The weekly certified payrolls are submitted to the District.
2024-003 Wage Rate Compliance CFDA Title: Education Stabilization Fund CFDA Number: 84.425 Federal Award Number and Year: 2021 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through Entity: Montana Office of Public Instruction Condition: The District did not comply with the wage rate compliance related to construction using Education Stabilization Fund (ESSER) Grant monies. Context: During the testing of significant claims for the ESSER major programs related to construction, we noted claims in which there should be contracts in place and that the wage rate requirements would apply. Criteria: Section 7007 construction funds, as well as any Section 7002 or 7003(b) funds spent for construction or minor remodeling, are subject to Wage Rate Requirements (20 USC 1232b). Compliance Requirement – All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors to work on construction contracts in excess of $2,000 financed by Federal assistance funds must be paid wages not less than those established for the locality of the project (prevailing wage rates) by the Department of Labor (DOL) (40 USC 3141-3144, 3146, and 3147). Non-federal entities shall include in their construction contracts subject to the Wage Rate Requirements (which still may be referenced as the Davis-Bacon Act) a provision that the contractor or subcontractor comply with those requirements and the DOL regulations (29 CFR part 5, Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contacts Governing Federally Financed and Assisted Construction). This includes a requirement for the contractor or subcontractor to submit to the non-Federal entity weekly, for each week in which any contract work is performed, a copy of the payroll and a statement of compliance (certified payrolls) (29 CFR sections 5.5 and 5.6; the A-102 Common Rule (section 36(i)(5)); OMB Circular A-110 (2 CFR part 215, Appendix A, Contract Provisions); 2 CFR part 176, subpart C; and 2 CFR section 200.326). Effect: Noncompliance with the Wage Rate Requirement for construction paid for out of the ESSER Grants. Cause: The District was not aware of the requirement. Recommendation: The District should implement internal controls to determine the federal compliance requirements of all federal funds received. In addition, procedures should be implemented to ensure any federal funds received in which the Wage Rate Requirement is required the following are implemented: 1. Any construction vendor is by contract, and that contract includes the Prevailing Wage clauses for the contractors and subcontractors. 2. The weekly certified payrolls are submitted to the District.
Finding 2024-001 – COVID 19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund - AL No. 21.027 U.S. Department of Treasury Other Matters Related to Internal Control over Compliance of the Major Program Criteria: Non‐federal entities other than states, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of states, must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. Condition and Context: During our testing as it related to compliance with procurement we noted that an expense for engineering services for the Waste Water Treatment Assessment services charged to the major program would have required a formal bidding process as the project exceeded the simplified acquisition threshold. The Town had selected the engineering company for “On Call” engineering services as it related to the DPW through a request for qualifications process. The contract does include as part of the services to be provided Waste Water Treatment Assessment services. However, the contract is not specific to federally funded projects. The Town of Medfield had submitted the request for qualifications documentation as well as the executed contracted for “On Call” services to both the Town’s consulting service and the pass through entity for approval of the Waste Water Treatment Assessment. The pass through entity and the pass through entities Auditors did not have any concerns with the request for qualifications as it relates to the Waste Water Treatment Assessment project. Questioned Costs: $40,500 Cause: Based on the judgement of the pass through entity (Norfolk County) and their auditors, the Town was approved to procure engineering services for the Waste Water Treatment Assessment as part of a larger “On Call” services contract. The Town did select the contractor through a competitive request for qualifications process, but did not initiate a separate procurement for the sub-project. Effect or Potential Effect: There is risk that amounts charged to the federal awards major program may not be in accordance with procurement, suspension, and debarment principles. Identification as a Repeat Finding: N/A Recommendation: Going forward, the Town of Medfield should consider a separate bidding process for expenses related to federal grant funds. Management Response: Due to the differences in the interpretation of federal requirements regarding competitive procurement, the Town will follow the more restrictive one on an ongoing basis. New projects paid for by federal grants will have separate procurements.
2024-004 Procurement Federal Agency: All Federal Agencies - US Department of Transportation Federal Program Name: All Federal Programs Assistance Listing Number: All Assistance Listing Numbers - 20.205 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: N/A – applies to all Federal Programs Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Period: N/A Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Other Matter Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (UG) requires compliance with the provisions of procurement, suspension, and debarment. Condition: The Town’s procurement standards do not include the essential elements as outlined in 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326. Effect: With the absence of a compliant policy, the Town is at risk for noncompliance as it relates to federal procurement. Cause: The Town was unaware that the policy was not compliant with Uniform Guidance. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that the Town review its formal procurement policies and make necessary changes to comply with the criteria as set out in 2 CFR sections 200.318 and 200.326. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with this finding.
Finding No. 2024-004 Procurement Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Program Name: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: SLFRFP4547 – 2021 Award Period: 3/3/21 – 12/31/24 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Criteria or Specific Requirement: The Town must comply with procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318 through 200.326 within Uniform Guidance. Control: Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). UG §200.318 General procurement standards. (i) The non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: Rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. §200.320 states that the non-Federal entity must use one of the prescribed methods of procurement. (a) Informal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal award does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold (SAT), as defined in §200.1, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are not required. The non-Federal entity may use informal procurement methods to expedite the completion of its transactions and minimize the associated administrative burden and cost. The informal methods used for procurement of property or services at or below the SAT include: (1) Micro-purchases. Procurement by micro-purchase is the acquisition of supplies or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold (See the definition of micro-purchase in §200.1). To the maximum extent practicable, the non-Federal entity should distribute micro-purchases equitably among qualified suppliers. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price or rate quotations if the non-Federal entity considers the price to be reasonable based on research, experience, purchase history or other information and documents it files accordingly. Purchase cards can be used for micropurchases if procedures are documented and approved by the non-Federal entity. (2) Small purchase. Procurement by small purchase is the acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which is higher than the micro-purchase threshold but does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources as determined appropriate by the non-Federal entity. (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance award exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a noncompetitive procurement can be used in accordance with §200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: (1) Sealed bids. Bids are publicly solicited, and a firm fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price) is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is the lowest in price. (2) Proposals. Either a fixed price or cost-reimbursement type contract is awarded. Proposals are generally used when conditions are not appropriate for the use of sealed bids. (c) Noncompetitive procurement. There are specific circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the allowed circumstances apply. Condition: The Town purchasing policy does not include all elements as outlined in 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318 through 200.326 noted above. Questioned Costs: None Context: Although the Town’s purchasing policies do not include all elements as outlined in 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318 through 200.326, we did not identify transactions where contracts were awarded without proper justification in 7 of 7 procurement transactions tested. Cause: Management was not aware of the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318 through 200.326 within Uniform Guidance. Effect: The Town is at risk for noncompliance with Federal grants as it relates to procurement. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that the Town update its procurement policies to include all elements identified in 2 CFR sections 200.303 and 200.318 through 200.326. Views of Responsible Officials: Management is working with our current auditors to update the Town’s procurement policies to be in compliance with the Uniform Guidance.
2024-001 PROCUREMENT, SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT Grantor: U. S. Department of the Treasury Federal Program Name: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds CFDA Number: 21.027 Pass-through Entities: CT Department of Social Services CT Department of Children and Families CT Office of Early Childhood CT Office of Victim Services Criteria: When procuring property and services, entities must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318-200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR part 200. Condition: The procurement policy in place during fiscal 2024 had not been updated to comply with the requirement of the Uniform Guidance as stated above, and did not specify a micro-purchase or small purchase threshold above which written quotes would be required. A formal written policy for ensuring vendors are not suspended or debarred was not included in the existing policy and therefore this process was not being executed in a consistent manner. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: Certain purchases could be incurred at higher amounts than might have been the case had multiple written quotes been obtained prior to the transaction. However, all purchases tested appeared to be in the normal course of business and costs appeared reasonable. Our testing did not result in any questioned costs. Additionally, the potential existed that a vendor that could either be suspended or debarred could have unknowingly been utilized due to the existing process. Cause: The agency did not timely complete the process to update its policies and procedures to conform with the Uniform Guidance by the expiration of the extended implementation deadline cited in the Uniform Guidance. A new policy was implemented subsequent to year-end. Recommendation: Additional training of relevant staff regarding the new policies and procedures should be considered, especially regarding retention of adequate documentation of bids, quotes, or other procedures including documentation of the checking of vendors against the suspension and debarment lists. Views of Responsible Officials: A new procurement policy, including a process to ensure vendors are not suspended or debarred, was prepared and implemented effective in January 2025. Relevant staff have been and continue to be trained appropriately regarding execution of related procedures to ensure all aspects are being properly performed.
2024-001 PROCUREMENT, SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT Grantor: U. S. Department of the Treasury Federal Program Name: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds CFDA Number: 21.027 Pass-through Entities: CT Department of Social Services CT Department of Children and Families CT Office of Early Childhood CT Office of Victim Services Criteria: When procuring property and services, entities must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318-200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR part 200. Condition: The procurement policy in place during fiscal 2024 had not been updated to comply with the requirement of the Uniform Guidance as stated above, and did not specify a micro-purchase or small purchase threshold above which written quotes would be required. A formal written policy for ensuring vendors are not suspended or debarred was not included in the existing policy and therefore this process was not being executed in a consistent manner. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: Certain purchases could be incurred at higher amounts than might have been the case had multiple written quotes been obtained prior to the transaction. However, all purchases tested appeared to be in the normal course of business and costs appeared reasonable. Our testing did not result in any questioned costs. Additionally, the potential existed that a vendor that could either be suspended or debarred could have unknowingly been utilized due to the existing process. Cause: The agency did not timely complete the process to update its policies and procedures to conform with the Uniform Guidance by the expiration of the extended implementation deadline cited in the Uniform Guidance. A new policy was implemented subsequent to year-end. Recommendation: Additional training of relevant staff regarding the new policies and procedures should be considered, especially regarding retention of adequate documentation of bids, quotes, or other procedures including documentation of the checking of vendors against the suspension and debarment lists. Views of Responsible Officials: A new procurement policy, including a process to ensure vendors are not suspended or debarred, was prepared and implemented effective in January 2025. Relevant staff have been and continue to be trained appropriately regarding execution of related procedures to ensure all aspects are being properly performed.
2024-001 PROCUREMENT, SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT Grantor: U. S. Department of the Treasury Federal Program Name: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds CFDA Number: 21.027 Pass-through Entities: CT Department of Social Services CT Department of Children and Families CT Office of Early Childhood CT Office of Victim Services Criteria: When procuring property and services, entities must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318-200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR part 200. Condition: The procurement policy in place during fiscal 2024 had not been updated to comply with the requirement of the Uniform Guidance as stated above, and did not specify a micro-purchase or small purchase threshold above which written quotes would be required. A formal written policy for ensuring vendors are not suspended or debarred was not included in the existing policy and therefore this process was not being executed in a consistent manner. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: Certain purchases could be incurred at higher amounts than might have been the case had multiple written quotes been obtained prior to the transaction. However, all purchases tested appeared to be in the normal course of business and costs appeared reasonable. Our testing did not result in any questioned costs. Additionally, the potential existed that a vendor that could either be suspended or debarred could have unknowingly been utilized due to the existing process. Cause: The agency did not timely complete the process to update its policies and procedures to conform with the Uniform Guidance by the expiration of the extended implementation deadline cited in the Uniform Guidance. A new policy was implemented subsequent to year-end. Recommendation: Additional training of relevant staff regarding the new policies and procedures should be considered, especially regarding retention of adequate documentation of bids, quotes, or other procedures including documentation of the checking of vendors against the suspension and debarment lists. Views of Responsible Officials: A new procurement policy, including a process to ensure vendors are not suspended or debarred, was prepared and implemented effective in January 2025. Relevant staff have been and continue to be trained appropriately regarding execution of related procedures to ensure all aspects are being properly performed.
2024-001 PROCUREMENT, SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT Grantor: U. S. Department of the Treasury Federal Program Name: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds CFDA Number: 21.027 Pass-through Entities: CT Department of Social Services CT Department of Children and Families CT Office of Early Childhood CT Office of Victim Services Criteria: When procuring property and services, entities must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318-200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR part 200. Condition: The procurement policy in place during fiscal 2024 had not been updated to comply with the requirement of the Uniform Guidance as stated above, and did not specify a micro-purchase or small purchase threshold above which written quotes would be required. A formal written policy for ensuring vendors are not suspended or debarred was not included in the existing policy and therefore this process was not being executed in a consistent manner. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: Certain purchases could be incurred at higher amounts than might have been the case had multiple written quotes been obtained prior to the transaction. However, all purchases tested appeared to be in the normal course of business and costs appeared reasonable. Our testing did not result in any questioned costs. Additionally, the potential existed that a vendor that could either be suspended or debarred could have unknowingly been utilized due to the existing process. Cause: The agency did not timely complete the process to update its policies and procedures to conform with the Uniform Guidance by the expiration of the extended implementation deadline cited in the Uniform Guidance. A new policy was implemented subsequent to year-end. Recommendation: Additional training of relevant staff regarding the new policies and procedures should be considered, especially regarding retention of adequate documentation of bids, quotes, or other procedures including documentation of the checking of vendors against the suspension and debarment lists. Views of Responsible Officials: A new procurement policy, including a process to ensure vendors are not suspended or debarred, was prepared and implemented effective in January 2025. Relevant staff have been and continue to be trained appropriately regarding execution of related procedures to ensure all aspects are being properly performed.
2024-001 PROCUREMENT, SUSPENSION AND DEBARMENT Grantor: U. S. Department of the Treasury Federal Program Name: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds CFDA Number: 21.027 Pass-through Entities: CT Department of Social Services CT Department of Children and Families CT Office of Early Childhood CT Office of Victim Services Criteria: When procuring property and services, entities must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318-200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR part 200. Condition: The procurement policy in place during fiscal 2024 had not been updated to comply with the requirement of the Uniform Guidance as stated above, and did not specify a micro-purchase or small purchase threshold above which written quotes would be required. A formal written policy for ensuring vendors are not suspended or debarred was not included in the existing policy and therefore this process was not being executed in a consistent manner. Questioned Costs: None. Effect: Certain purchases could be incurred at higher amounts than might have been the case had multiple written quotes been obtained prior to the transaction. However, all purchases tested appeared to be in the normal course of business and costs appeared reasonable. Our testing did not result in any questioned costs. Additionally, the potential existed that a vendor that could either be suspended or debarred could have unknowingly been utilized due to the existing process. Cause: The agency did not timely complete the process to update its policies and procedures to conform with the Uniform Guidance by the expiration of the extended implementation deadline cited in the Uniform Guidance. A new policy was implemented subsequent to year-end. Recommendation: Additional training of relevant staff regarding the new policies and procedures should be considered, especially regarding retention of adequate documentation of bids, quotes, or other procedures including documentation of the checking of vendors against the suspension and debarment lists. Views of Responsible Officials: A new procurement policy, including a process to ensure vendors are not suspended or debarred, was prepared and implemented effective in January 2025. Relevant staff have been and continue to be trained appropriately regarding execution of related procedures to ensure all aspects are being properly performed.
2024 – 009 Special Tests and Provisions – Wage Rate Federal Agency: Department of Interior Federal Program Title: Outdoor Recreation Acquisition, Development and Planning ALN: 15.916 Pass-Through Agency: Arizona State Park Trails Pass-Through Number(s): 04-007-652304 Award Number and Period: 04/18/2022-12/31/24 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), the City of Nogales (City) 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 40 USC 3141–3144, 3146, and 3147 All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors to work on construction contracts in excess of $2,000 financed by federal assistance funds must be paid wages not less than those established for the locality of the project (prevailing wage rates) by the Department of Labor (DOL). Per 29 CFR Part 5, Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contacts Governing Federally Financed and Assisted Construction: Nonfederal entities shall include in their construction contracts subject to the Wage Rate Requirements (which still may be referenced as the Davis-Bacon Act) a provision that the contractor or subcontractor comply with those requirements and the DOL regulations. This includes a requirement for the contractor or subcontractor to submit to the nonfederal entity weekly, for each week in which any contract work is performed, a copy of the payroll and a statement of compliance (certified payrolls) (29 CFR sections 5.5 and 5.6; the A-102 Common Rule (section 36(i)(5)); OMB Circular A-110 (2 CFR Part 215, Appendix A, Contract Provisions); 2 CFR Part 176, Subpart C; and 2 CFR section 200.326). Condition: There was no support provided for the three out of three contractor vendors with construction work noted on their purchase orders. Questioned costs: None. Context: See “Condition.” Cause: Current process and controls are not at the correct precision level to ensure special provisions regarding the Wage Rate compliances are being met. Effect: Ineffective internal controls may result in questioned costs and noncompliance with the terms of the grant award. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: The City of Nogales should refine its current process and associated controls surrounding the requirements in 40 USC 3141–3144, 3146, and 3147 to ensure they are met. Views of responsible officials: See corrective action plan. Corrective action plan: See corrective action plan.
2024-003 – Written Policies Required by the Uniform Grant Guidance Finding Type. Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Immaterial Noncompliance (Procurement and Suspension and Debarment) Program. COVID-19 State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Cluster (CFDA# 21.027); U.S. Department of Treasury; Passed through Lake County. Criteria. Non-federal entities other than states, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of states, must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. Condition. The District did not have documented procurement standards to comply with 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326. Cause. The District has drafted a policy for these areas in accordance with 2 CFR Part 200, but it has not been finalized. Effect. As a result of this condition, the District did not fully comply with 2 CFR Part 200 applicable to the above noted grant. Questioned Costs. No costs have been questioned as a result of this finding. Recommendation. We recommend that the District develop a policy as soon as practical, but no later than the end of fiscal year 2025, to comply with 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326. View of Responsible Officials. We agree with the recommendation and will develop procedures to comply with the Uniform Guidance applicable to grants Repeat finding. 2023-003
The procurement policy and conflict of interest policy of the Organization do not include the essential elements as outlined in 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326.
The procurement policy and conflict of interest policy of the Organization do not include the essential elements as outlined in 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326.
The procurement policy and conflict of interest policy of the Organization do not include the essential elements as outlined in 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326.
The procurement policy and conflict of interest policy of the Organization do not include the essential elements as outlined in 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326.
The procurement policy and conflict of interest policy of the Organization do not include the essential elements as outlined in 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326.
Finding 2024-002: Procurement Federal Program Information: Department of Housing and Urban Development Continuum of Care Program, Direct funding – AL No. 14.267, Grant No. CA1320L9T142208. CA1320L9T142309, CA1255L9T142208, CA0841L9T141908, CA0773L9T142214, CA0773L9T142315, CA1317L9T132106 and CA1403L9T132106 Condition: Wipfli, LLP obtained the supporting documentation for purchases of client furnishings, cleaning services, and pest control services. The documentation indicated these vendors were selected based on best price. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. was able to provide explanations for why the vendor were selected, but procurement records supporting the explanations were not available for the pest control vendor. In addition, Wipfli noted Turning Point of Central California, Inc.’s procurement policy included references to outdated federal regulations and did not comply with all of the procurement requirements in the Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200). This is a repeat finding from the June 30, 2021, 2022 and 2023 audits. Criteria: The Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, 2 CFR Part 200, section 318(i) (Uniform Guidance) states that the non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. The records will include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contractor type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. In addition, the Uniform Guidance, 2 CFR Part 200, section 200.118 states that the non-Federal entity must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326 and must use their own documented procurement procedures that must conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. Cause: Turning Point of Central California, Inc. did not retain procurement records to support its assertion that it is contracting with vendors that provide the best prices. Turning Point of Central California, Inc. has not updated its procurement policy to comply with the Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200). Effect: Due to the conditions noted above, Turning Point of Central California, Inc. was not in compliance with the procurement regulations and there exists a material weakness in internal controls over the procurement compliance requirement. Recommendation: We recommend Turning Point of Central California, Inc. implement controls to ensure the procurement decisions are properly documented in accordance with updated internal policies and procedures that conform to the Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200). View of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding and has submitted a corrective action plan.
Finding Number: 2024-002 Repeat Finding: Similar to prior year finding 2023-003 Program Name/Assistance Listing Title: Indian School Equalization, Special Education Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 15.042, 84.027 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Education Federal Award Number: A23AV00811 Questioned Costs: None Type of Finding: Noncompliance, Material Weakness Compliance Requirement: Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Criteria: Under 2 CFR §215.43 the School is required to implement certain procurement policies that adhere to the minimum federal requirements as outlined in 2 CFR §215.44. Non-federal entities other than States, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of States, must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR §§200.318 through 200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable State and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the Procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR part 200. Condition: The School did not always follow procurement standards as put forth in 2 CFR §200.318 through §200.326. Effect: Noncompliance with federal regulation that led to a qualified audit opinion over the listed federal programs as noted above. Cause: Management oversight. Context: For two of 25 vendors within the Simplified Acquisition Threshold tested, the School did not maintain documentation that appropriate procurement procedures were performed or provide documentation to support the School’s reasoning for a noncompetitive procurement. Recommendation: The School should review its procurement procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures are performed documentation is maintained to support the procurement. Response: The School’s responses are presented in a separate document. Contact person: Dolores Silva, Chief Financial Officer
Finding Number: 2024-002 Repeat Finding: Similar to prior year finding 2023-003 Program Name/Assistance Listing Title: Indian School Equalization, Special Education Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 15.042, 84.027 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Department of Education Federal Award Number: A23AV00811 Questioned Costs: None Type of Finding: Noncompliance, Material Weakness Compliance Requirement: Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Criteria: Under 2 CFR §215.43 the School is required to implement certain procurement policies that adhere to the minimum federal requirements as outlined in 2 CFR §215.44. Non-federal entities other than States, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of States, must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR §§200.318 through 200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable State and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the Procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR part 200. Condition: The School did not always follow procurement standards as put forth in 2 CFR §200.318 through §200.326. Effect: Noncompliance with federal regulation that led to a qualified audit opinion over the listed federal programs as noted above. Cause: Management oversight. Context: For two of 25 vendors within the Simplified Acquisition Threshold tested, the School did not maintain documentation that appropriate procurement procedures were performed or provide documentation to support the School’s reasoning for a noncompetitive procurement. Recommendation: The School should review its procurement procedures to ensure that proper procurement procedures are performed documentation is maintained to support the procurement. Response: The School’s responses are presented in a separate document. Contact person: Dolores Silva, Chief Financial Officer
Criteria: The Association should have in place written procurement standards found in 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.326 of the Uniform Guidance. Condition: The Association does not have written procurement standards that are in accordance with the standards found in 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.326 of the Uniform Guidance. Cause: The Association’s written purchasing policy has not been updated to incorporate the standards found in 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.326 of the Uniform Guidance. Effect: The Association is not in compliance with the procurement standards found in 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.326 of the Uniform Guidance. Recommendation: We recommend the Association update its written purchasing policy to ensure the procurement standards found in 2 CFR 200.317 through 200.326 of the Uniform Guidance are incorporated. Management’s Response: The Association will update its purchasing policy to ensure the procurement standards in 2 CFR 200.317 – 200.326 are incorporated.
Finding 2024-002 – COVID 19 – Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund - AL No. 21.027 U.S. Department of Treasury Noncompliance and Material Weakness Related to Internal Control over Compliance of the Major Program Criteria: Non‐federal entities other than states, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of states, must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. As governmental subrecipients of states they are also required to use the same state procurement policies and procedures for federal funds as for non‐federal funds, the Town is required to follow Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter (MGL) 30(b). MGL 30(b) requires the solicitation of three written or oral quotes for procurements of supplies between $10,000 and $49,999 and sealed bids or proposals for procurements of supplies $50,000 and over. Management of the Town is also responsible for establishing and maintaining effective internal control over compliance with federal requirements that have a direct and material effect on a federal program. However, a deficiency in internal control over compliance exists when the design or operation of a control over compliance does not allow management or employees, in the normal course of performing their assigned functions, to prevent, or detect and correct, noncompliance with a type of compliance requirement of a federal program on a timely basis. Condition and Context: During fiscal year 2024, the Town did not comply with the required procurement policies and procedures in place as it related to expenses charged to the major program requiring procurement procedures. One of the expenses tested was for engineering services that would have been exempt under Massachusetts General Laws, Chapter (MGL) 30(b) (State Procurement Requirement), under federal statutes and procurement requirements for engineering services identified in 2 CFR Part 200, the Town would have been required to go out to bid for the services. Questioned Costs: $413,477.78 Cause: The noncompliance occurred because the organization mistakenly relied on Massachusetts Chapter 30B exemptions, which govern state and local procurements, and did not recognize the need to comply with the more stringent federal procurement requirements for federal fund usage. Staff members were not sufficiently aware of the specific requirements under 2 CFR Part 200 and the precedence of federal procurement regulations over state law in this context. Effect or Potential Effect: There is risk that the amounts charged to the federal awards major program may not be in accordance with procurement, suspension, and debarment principles. Identification as a Repeat Finding: 2023-003 Recommendation: The Town of Bellingham should address the nocompliance and material weakness in internal controls noted above in order to ensure that procurements are conducted in accordance with federal and state requirements. Management Response: We acknowledge the audit finding regarding our reliance on Massachusetts Chapter 30B exemptions for procurement involving federal funds. We understand that federal procurement regulations under 2 CFR Part 200 take precedence over state law and that we failed fully to comply with federal requirements for competitive bidding, sole-source justification, and documentation. We are committed to addressing this issue by reviewing our procurement policies to clearly differentiate between state and federal requirements, ensuring that federal standards govern all procurement involving federal funds. We will provide additional training to staff, implement stronger documentation procedures, and review past procurement to ensure full compliance moving forward.
Criteria: 2 C.F.R. § 200.326 and 2 C.F.R. Part 200, Appendix II require specific provisions and clauses to be included in non-federal entity contracts when utilizing federal funds to reimburse expenditures. Additionally, Louisiana Revised Statute (L.R.S.) 38:2224 requires that affidavit(s) be completed attesting that the public contract was not secured through employment or payment of solicitor public funds. Condition: The School Board’s contract for the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) - disaster #1603 alternate project PW 11249, did not include the provisions and clauses required for non-federal entity contracts. Additionally, affidavit(s) was not completed attesting that the public contract was not secured through employment or payment of solicitor public funds. Cause: The School Board did not include the required provisions and clauses or ensure the affidavits were properly completed. Effect: The School Board did not meet all federal compliance requirements for federally funded contracts. Additionally, the School Board was not in compliance with L.R.S. 38:2224 requiring completed affidavit(s) for public works contracts. Recommendation: The School Board should develop and implement procedures to ensure federally funded contracts include all required provisions and clauses. Additionally, the School Board should include in those federally funded contract procedures requirements that appropriate affidavits as required by L.R.S. 38:2224 be completed.
Condition: The County’s procurement policy is not in compliance with the requirements set forth in the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) at 2 CFR Part 200. Controls are ineffective to prevent failures in compliance with procurement requirements. Criteria: The Uniform Guidance at 2 CFR Part 200, specifically sections 200.318 to 200.326, establishes procurement standards and requirements for federal awards. The key principles include ensuring competition, maintaining written procurement policies, and avoiding conflicts of interest in procurement decisions. Effect: The lack of sufficient controls over procurement may result in noncompliance with federal requirements, potentially leading to disallowed costs, audit findings, and reduced funding. Recommendation: We recommend that the County revise its procurement policy (including internal control policies and procedures specific to the County) to align with the Uniform Guidance requirements. We also recommend the County provide its procurement policy in written form and regularly updated to each of its federal and state program managers to ensure proper compliance and consistent implementation. Response/Corrective Action Plan: We concur with the finding and will revise the procurement policy as well as the internal control policies and procedures specific to the County to be in alignment with the Uniform Guidance requirements. Upon completion, the new policy will be provided to all department heads to ensure proper compliance in the utilization and disbursement of federal funds.
CHILD NUTRITION CLUSTER – PROCUREMENT U.S. Department of Agriculture Child Nutrition Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.553, 10.555, 10.556, 10.559, 10.582 Passed Through Minnesota Department of Education Pass Through Number: 10.CNC Award Period: July 1, 2023 – June 30, 2024 Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control Over Compliance, Material Noncompliance (Modified Opinion) Criteria or specific requirement: Non-federal entities other than states must follow the procurement standards set out at CFR section 200.318 through 200.326. This includes utilizing one of the five allowable procurement methods, including small purchase guidelines for items over the micro-purchase threshold and sealed bids, competitive proposals, or noncompetitive proposals when items exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. In addition, the Uniform Guidance requires the entity maintain records sufficient to detail the history of the procurement. Condition: During our testing of the District’s procurements within the Child Nutrition program, it was noted that none of the selected procurements had sufficient documentation of the history of the transaction. Context: Forty procurement transactions were selected for testing. Federal regulations require that purchases follow documented procurement procedures, including evidence of open competition and retention of contract documentation for those procurement transactions over the District’s $3,500 micropurchase threshold. The District did not provide documentation of an open and competitive process for any of these purchases. Questioned costs: None Cause: Time pressure led to this requirement being missed. Effect: Lack of proper documentation could lead to using vendors for small purchase acquisition without ensuring comparable pricing from other vendors and justifying costs. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that the District ensure quotes are obtained for all procurements that are above the micro-purchase threshold, and that this process is documented along with their assessments of cost analysis performed. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the finding.
SPECIAL EDUCATION CLUSTER – PROCUREMENT U.S. Department of Education Special Education Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 84.027 & 84.173 Passed Through Minnesota Department of Education Pass Through Number: H027A220087 Award Period: July 1, 2023 – June 30, 2024 Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control Over Compliance, Material Noncompliance (Modified Opinion) Criteria or specific requirement: Non-federal entities other than states must follow the procurement standards set out at CFR section 200.318 through 200.326. This includes utilizing one of the five allowable procurement methods, including small purchase guidelines for items over the micro-purchase threshold and sealed bids, competitive proposals, or noncompetitive proposals when items exceed the simplified acquisition threshold. In addition, the Uniform Guidance requires the entity maintain records sufficient to detail the history of the procurement. Condition: During our testing of the District’s procurements within the Special Education program, it was noted not all procurements followed the appropriate method and history of the transaction was not sufficiently documented. Context: Five selections over the $3,500 micropurchase threshold were selected for testing. Federal regulations require that purchases above this threshold follow documented procurement procedures, including evidence of open competition and retention of contract documentation. The District did not provide documentation of an open and competitive process for four of these purchases and did not maintain the executed contract for one purchase. Questioned costs: None Cause: Time pressure led to this requirement being missed. Effect: Lack of proper documentation could lead to using vendors for small purchase acquisition without ensuring comparable pricing from other vendors and justifying costs. Repeat finding: Yes – 2023-006. Recommendation: We recommend that the District ensure quotes are obtained for all procurements that are above the micro-purchase threshold, and that this process is documented along with their assessments of cost analysis performed. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the finding.
Criteria: Pursuant to 2 CFR 200.326 and Appendix II to 2 CFR Part 200, non-federal entities must include all applicable federal requirements in contracts financed with federal awards, including prevailing wage (Davis-Bacon Act) labor standards when applicable. In addition, Davis-Bacon Act requirements require contractors to submit weekly certified payrolls and statements of compliance, and require the nonfederal entity to monitor and review such payrolls to ensure compliance with prevailing wage requirements. Condition: It was noted that the non-federal entity expended approximately $392,000 representing 100 percent of program expenditures, under a single construction contract subject to prevailing wage requirements. However: 1. The executed construction contract did not include the required prevailing wage (Davis-Bacon) clauses. 2. The contractor did not submit weekly certified payroll reports and statements of compliance to the non-federal entity. Instead, payroll documentation was maintained by the contractor and made available upon request. The entity did not routinely obtain or document review of certified payrolls during the project period. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: Prevailing wage requirements were not met due to inadequate review of the construction contract and oversight of the construction company. Effect: The entity did not have a process to ensure and enforce compliance with prevailing wage requirements and the construction contract did not include the required prevailing wage clauses. Cause: Management did not have adequate internal controls in place to ensure that required federal labor standard provisions were incorporated into construction contracts and did not establish or enforce procedures requiring the routine submission and documented review of certified payrolls from contractors. Repeat Finding: Not applicable. Recommendation: We recommend that management implement controls to ensure that all construction contracts subject to prevailing wage requirements include the required federal labor standard provisions prior to execution. In addition, management should establish and enforce procedures requiring contractors to submit weekly certified payrolls and should document management’s review of such payrolls to ensure ongoing compliance with prevailing wage requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and has set up a corrective action plan. Refer to Corrective Action Plan. 2024-003 – Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Other Matters – Special Tests & Provisions Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Grant Name: Home Investment Partnerships Program Grant Number: GOL-24-JHF-1 Refer to finding 2024-002. Questioned Costs: None noted. Repeat Finding: Not applicable. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding and has set up a corrective action plan. Refer to Corrective Action Plan.
Finding 2024-016: Material Weakness in Internal Control and Material Noncompliance – Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Assistance Listing Program Title and Number: Special Education (IDEA) Cluster (84.027, 84.173), COVID 19-Coronavirus State & Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (21.027) Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education, U.S. Department of Treasury Pass-through Entity: State of Connecticut Department of Education, State of Connecticut Department of Emergency Services and Public Protection Award year: 2023 – 2024 Criteria or specific requirement: The City, which includes Danbury Public Schools (DPS), must follow procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326. There are three types of procurement methods described in this section: informal procurement methods (for micro-purchases and simplified acquisitions); formal procurement methods (through sealed bids or proposals); and noncompetitive procurement methods. For any of these methods, the recipient or subrecipient must maintain and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319. Additionally, 2 CFR Section 180 requires that recipients of federal awards have policies and procedures in place to verify contracted vendors are not on the federal suspended or debarred parties list. Condition: The DPS Grant Administration did not adhere to the Danbury Public Schools “Bids and Purchases Competitive” procurement policies, that were compliant with Federal Part 3 compliance guidelines. DPS had a procurement policy in place that was consistent with the standards of the aforementioned compliance sections; however, DPS did not follow their own procurement policy in certain instances which consists of obtaining three quotes for a small purchase procurements and advertising for bids publicly for large >$5,000 purchase procurements. They only obtained one quote for small purchases, and they did not use a public bid process for expenditures over $5,000. Additionally, DPS did not have internal controls in place to ensure vendor eligibility was verified prior to entering into a covered transaction with them. Cause: While DPS has a formal policy around required bids, the thresholds have not been updated in several years and there was a lack of controls that ensured the DPS procurement policy was being adhered to in order to be compliant with the compliance standards. Finally, the policy did not address verifying vendors were neither suspended nor debarred. Effect: Possible effects include not awarding the purchase to the lowest qualified bidder or to a vendor on the suspended or debarred parties list. Context: For the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds program, there was a population of 183 procurements during the audit period. Of these procurements, there were 29 vendors that were subject to the rules on suspension and debarment. Of those 29 vendors, we sampled eight for testing. Two out of eight vendors tested did not have documentation that DPS verified the vendors were not suspended or debarred prior to entering into a covered transaction with them. The total amount of the two was $438,885 out of the total sample of $996,779. We also selected a sample of 23 procurements totaling $2,698,309 for testing. One sample was a small purchase totaling $2,550 which required three quotes however only one quote was obtained. The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. For the IDEA Cluster, there was a population of 251 procurements during the audit period. We sampled 31 procurements for testing totaling $659,075. Three of the procurements tested totaling $293,692 did not follow the DPS procurement policy. Two exceptions (totaling $290,722) were for large purchases which did not follow the policy for procurement through a formal bid process. The other exception was a small purchase totaling $2,970 which did not follow the requirement of obtaining three or more quotes. The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Questioned Costs: For procurement under the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Program- $2,550 For procurement under the IDEA Cluster- $293,692 Repeat Finding: 2023-007 Recommendation: We recommend DPS implement controls that require review of each procurement to ensure DPS obtained the adequate number of quotes or bids for each expenditure. Additionally, we recommend DPS update their procurement thresholds to be more consistent with the compliance minimum requirements. Finally, we recommend DPS modify their policy to address suspension and debarment requirements to ensure they don’t enter into a covered transaction with a suspended or debarred vendor. The policy should require documentation of the search performed. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding.
Information on the Federal Program(s): 14.228 Community Development Block Grants/State’s Program Compliance Requirements: Procurement. Type of Finding: Material Noncompliance. Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.319(d) requires that the non-Federal entity must maintain written procedures for procurement transactions. Condition: We noted that the City did not have written procedures for procurement transactions that include the provisions required by the Procurement Standards 2 CFR § 200.318 through 2 CFR § 200.327. Cause: The City was not aware of the requirement to have written procedures for procurement transactions. Effect: Failure to have adequate written procedures for procurement transactions could result in the acquisition of goods or services in violation with administrative requirements, federal regulations, other procurement requirements, and Uniform Guidance requirements. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs. Recommendation: We recommend that the City identify grants that are subject to Uniform Guidance on a timely basis to ensure all compliance requirements are met and develop adequate written policies and procedures for procurement transactions. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: The City has identified federal grants subject to the Uniform Guidance and will develop written policies and procedures which include the relevant provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.318 through 2 CFR § 200.326 Contract provisions.
Information on the Federal Program(s): 14.228 Community Development Block Grants/State’s Program Compliance Requirements: Procurement. Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control Over Compliance. Criteria: Internal controls should be in place to provide reasonable assurance that procurement of goods and services are made in compliance with federal regulations and other procurement requirements, as applicable. Condition: The City lacks sufficient controls over procurement to ensure compliance with federal regulations and other procurement requirements, as applicable. Cause: The City did not design and implement controls over compliance with procurement. Effect or Potential Effect: Failure to have adequate internal controls over compliance with procurement could result in the acquisition of goods or services in violation with administrative requirements, federal regulations, and other procurement requirements. Questioned Costs: There are no questioned costs. Recommendation: We recommend that the City create and adopt an official written policy for procurement and contracts establishing contract files that document significant procurement history; methods of procurement authorized including selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis of contract price; verification that procurements provide full and open competition; requirements for cost or price analysis, including for contract modifications; obtaining and reacting to suspension and debarment certifications; and other applicable requirements for procurements under federal awards are followed. We also recommend that personnel with adequate knowledge and experience of responsibilities for procurements for federal awards review procurement and contracting decisions for compliance with federal procurement policies. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management concurs with the audit finding. The City will develop written policies and procedures for procurement, including the relevant provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.318 through 2 CFR § 200.326 Contract provisions. Management will evaluate the need to contract with local government consultants to perform control procedures where City personnel are not available or qualified to perform.
2024-004 Wage Rate Requirements - Contract Language ALN and Title: 20.106 - Airport Improvement Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass Through Entity: Georgia Department of Transportation Identifying Number: 313SBGP0582023 Award Year: 2023 Special Tests and Provisions-Wage Rate Requirements Criteria or Specific Requirement - 2 CFR 200.303(a) requires non-Federal entities expending Federal awards to establish and maintain effective internal controls over compliance with Federal statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors to work on construction contracts in excess of $2,000 financed by federal assistance funds must be paid wages not less than those established for the locality of the project (prevailing wage rates) by the Department of Labor (DOL) (40 USC 3141-3144, 3146, and 3147. Nonfederal entities shall include in their construction contracts subject to the Wage Rate Requirements (which still may be referenced as the Davis-Bacon Act) a provision that the contractor or subcontractor comply with those requirements and the DOL regulations (29 CFR Part 5, Labor Standards Provisions Applicable to Contacts Governing Federally Financed and Assisted Construction). (29 CFR sections 5.5 and 5.6; the A-102 Common Rule (section 36(i)(5)); 0MB Circular A-110 (2 CFR Part 215, Appendix A, Contract Provisions); 2 CFR Part 176, Subpart C; and 2 CFR section 200.326). Condition - Required prevailing wage rate clauses were not included in the contract or subcontract. Cause of Condition -The County was not aware the prevailing wage rate clauses were required to be include in the construction contract. Effect of Condition - The contract was not in compliance and did not contain the language that notified the contractor that prevailing wages were required under the contract. Questioned Costs - Undetermined Response of Management - Management concurs with this finding and will develop and implement policies to ensure that contracts and subcontracts with contractors or subcontractors working on projects financed by federal assistance funds contain prevailing wage rate clauses.
2024-005 Wage Rate Requirements - Review of Certified Payroll Reports ALN and Title: 20.106 - Airport Improvement Program Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Pass Through Entity: Georgia Department of Transportation Identifying Number: 313SBGP0582023 Award Year: 2023 Special Tests and Provisions-Wage Rate Requirements Criteria or Specific Requirement - 2 CFR 200.303(a) requires non-Federal entities expending Federal awards to establish and maintain effective internal controls over compliance with Federal statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. All laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors to work on construction contracts in excess of $2,000 financed by federal assistance funds must be paid wages not less than those established for the locality of the project (prevailing wage rates) by the Department of Labor (DOL) (40 USC 3141-3144, 3146, and 3147. This includes a requirement for the contractor or subcontractor to submit to the nonfederal entity weekly, for each week in which any contract work is performed, a copy of the payroll and a statement of compliance (certified payrolls) (29 CFR sections 5.5 and 5.6; the A-102 Common Rule (section 36(i)(5)); 0MB Circular A-110 (2 CFR Part 215, Appendix A, Contract Provisions); 2 CFR Part 176, Subpart C; and 2 CFR section 200.326). Condition - For each week in which work was performed under the contract or subcontract, the required certified payroll reports were not formally reviewed. Cause of Condition - The County did not have in place formal procedures to ensure that a suitable County official independently reviewed the certified payrolls that were submitted by the construction contractor and reviewed by the County's contracted engineering firm. Effect of Condition - The County did not ensure that construction workers were paid in accordance with the appropriate prevailing wage rates. Questioned Costs - Undetermined Response of Management - Management concurs with this finding and will develop and implement policies to ensure the required certified payroll reports are formally reviewed.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Justice Federal Program Title: Crime Victim Assistance Federal Assistance Listing Number: 16.575 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 15POVC23GG00443ASSI-2024 Pass-Through Agency: Minnesota Office of Justice Programs Pass-Through Number(s): A-CVS-2024-AMS-077 Award Period: 10/01/2023 to 09/30/2025 Type of Finding: • Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Major Federal Programs and Other Matters Criteria or Specific Requirement: Nonfederal entities other than states, including those operating federal programs as subrecipients of states, must follow the procurement standards set out at 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326. They must use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirements identified in 2 CFR Part 200. Condition: The Organization did not have a written procurement policy in accordance with Uniform Guidance for a portion of the year. In addition, during our testing, we noted the Organization did not apply the proper procurement procedures for two vendors as they did not perform appropriate procedures nor retain adequate documentation in accordance with Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: Unknown Context: Two out of the two procurement selections did not have procurement procedures followed. Cause: Vendors were procured prior to the implementation of a formal procurement policy; therefore, proper documentation was not retained as of the procurement date. Effect: Potential effect of noncompliance with Uniform Guidance when procuring goods and services for expenditures over federal awards. Repeat Finding: This is a repeat finding. Recommendation: The Organization should continue to apply its current procurement policy to new and existing vendors to ensure proper documentation is retained in accordance with said procurement policy and SA UG. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: The Organization will apply its current procurement policy to new and existing vendors in order to comply with applicable procurement requirements.
CFDA No. 14.228 – Community Development Block Grant Year Ended – May 31, 2024 Passed Through the NEW York State Housing Trust Fund Federal Agency – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Criteria – the Village’s procurement policy must incorporate federal award activity within the process and procedures followed by the Village in accordance with the Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), sections 200.112, 200.317-200.326. Under the Uniform Guidance, the procurement requirements were required to be implemented by January 1, 2018 for federal award recipients. Condition – The Village’s code of ethics, conflict of interest and procurement policies have not been updated to comply with the requirements in the Uniform Guidance. Cause – The control environment related to the requirements of the Uniform Guidance has not be reviewed and incorporated into the Village’s control activities through the updating and documentation of the Village’s policies noted above. Effect – The Village was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.112, Conflict of Interest and Sections 200.317-200.326, Procurement Standards. Questioned Costs – There were no questioned costs noted related to this finding. Context – This finding was identified during inquiries of management in regards to the control environment over the requirements of the Uniform Guidance and through the review of the related policies noted above. Recommendation – We recommend the Village review their policies and establish/update such policies to ensure compliance with the Uniform Guidance. Village’s Response – The Village Mayor will continue working with the consultants to update the required policies and procedures to ensure compliance during this next year.
CFDA No. 14.228 – Community Development Block Grant Year Ended – May 31, 2024 Passed Through the NEW York State Housing Trust Fund Federal Agency – U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Criteria – the Village’s procurement policy must incorporate federal award activity within the process and procedures followed by the Village in accordance with the Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), sections 200.112, 200.317-200.326. Under the Uniform Guidance, the procurement requirements were required to be implemented by January 1, 2018 for federal award recipients. Condition – The Village’s code of ethics, conflict of interest and procurement policies have not been updated to comply with the requirements in the Uniform Guidance. Cause – The control environment related to the requirements of the Uniform Guidance has not be reviewed and incorporated into the Village’s control activities through the updating and documentation of the Village’s policies noted above. Effect – The Village was not in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.112, Conflict of Interest and Sections 200.317-200.326, Procurement Standards. Questioned Costs – There were no questioned costs noted related to this finding. Context – This finding was identified during inquiries of management in regards to the control environment over the requirements of the Uniform Guidance and through the review of the related policies noted above. Recommendation – We recommend the Village review their policies and establish/update such policies to ensure compliance with the Uniform Guidance. Village’s Response – The Village Mayor will continue working with the consultants to update the required policies and procedures to ensure compliance during this next year.