2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, California Department of Social Services Federal Financial Assistance Listing/CFDA Number 93.575 Award Year 2022/23 Child Care and Development Fund Cluster Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control and Material Instance of Non-Compliance Criteria: In accordance with Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 200.332, pass-through entities must comply with the following: • 2 CFR 200.332(a) - Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the information at 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1) through (6) at the time of the subaward and if any of those data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. • 2 CFR 200.332(d)- Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include the information at 2 CFR 200.332(d)(1) through (4). • 2 CFR 200.332(f) – Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient’s Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 200.501. Condition: The information required in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1) through (6) was not provided at the time of the subaward. The information was provided to the subrecipients subsequent to the start date of the subaward. The Commission was responsible for the monitoring of the subrecipients to ensure that the subawards were used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. During our testing, we noted the Commission did not perform the risk assessment for 3 of 3 subrecipients. Due to the timing of the notifications of subaward to the subrecipients, the Commission was not able to verify whether subrecipients had reported the subawards within their financial statements as federal awards. Cause: During the current fiscal year, the Commission was implementing policies and procedures for subrecipient monitoring. However, the subrecipient monitoring procedures were not fully implemented as of year-end. Effect: The Commission had not fully complied with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Questioned Costs: None reported. Context: A nonstatistical sample of three (3) of three (3) subrecipients were selected for subrecipient monitoring testing. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: Yes – 2022-002 Recommendation: We recommend that the Commission adhere to their policies and procedures in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332 to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees. See separately issued Corrective Action Plan.
U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, California Department of Social Services Federal Financial Assistance Listing/CFDA Number 93.575 Award Year 2022/23 Child Care and Development Fund Cluster Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Type of Finding: Material Weakness in Internal Control and Material Instance of Non-Compliance Criteria: In accordance with Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 200.332, pass-through entities must comply with the following: • 2 CFR 200.332(a) - Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the information at 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1) through (6) at the time of the subaward and if any of those data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. • 2 CFR 200.332(d)- Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include the information at 2 CFR 200.332(d)(1) through (4). • 2 CFR 200.332(f) – Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient’s Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 200.501. Condition: The information required in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332(a)(1) through (6) was not provided at the time of the subaward. The information was provided to the subrecipients subsequent to the start date of the subaward. The Commission was responsible for the monitoring of the subrecipients to ensure that the subawards were used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. During our testing, we noted the Commission did not perform the risk assessment for 3 of 3 subrecipients. Due to the timing of the notifications of subaward to the subrecipients, the Commission was not able to verify whether subrecipients had reported the subawards within their financial statements as federal awards. Cause: During the current fiscal year, the Commission was implementing policies and procedures for subrecipient monitoring. However, the subrecipient monitoring procedures were not fully implemented as of year-end. Effect: The Commission had not fully complied with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Questioned Costs: None reported. Context: A nonstatistical sample of three (3) of three (3) subrecipients were selected for subrecipient monitoring testing. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: Yes – 2022-002 Recommendation: We recommend that the Commission adhere to their policies and procedures in accordance with 2 CFR 200.332 to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees. See separately issued Corrective Action Plan.
Finding 2023-005 Material weakness in internal control over compliance for subrecipient monitoring Federal Agency: United States Department of State Program Titles: Office of Global Women’s Issues Assistance Listing Number: 19.801 Pass-Through Entity: N/A Award Numbers: SLMAQM21CA3275 Award Periods: September 30, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Criteria Internal control requirements contained in Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, Subpart F ‐ Section 200.332(d) through (f), policy guide, require that a non‐Federal entity monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals. In addition to procedures identified as necessary based upon the evaluation of subrecipient risk or specifically required by the terms and conditions of the award, subaward monitoring must among others include the following: ‐ Reviewing financial and programmatic (performance and special reports) required by the Pass Through Entity (PTE). ‐ Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the federal award provided to the subrecipient from the PTE detected through audits, on-site reviews, and other means. ‐ Issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award provided to the subrecipient from the PTE as required by 2 CFR section 200.521. Condition/Context The Organization’s internal controls require review of quarterly financial and programmatic reports for all sub recipients. During our subrecipient monitoring testing, we note that one of the subrecipient’s ceased to provide the Organization with quarterly financial reports since January 2023 and through the year ended June 30, 2023. Cause The Organization’s did not enforce its policies per the subrecipient agreement to ensure that the quarterly reports are provided and reviewed. Effect The Organization’s subrecipient monitoring does not provide reasonable assurance that the subrecipient used the subaward for authorized purposed purposes in compliance with federal regulations. Questioned Costs $90,000 Repeat Finding No. Recommendation We recommend the Organization implement measures to ensure that all subrecipients comply with reporting and other terms and conditions of the subrecipient agreements. Views of Responsible Individual and Corrective Action Plan Management agrees with the finding and has provided the accompanying corrective action plan.
2023-003 Material Weakness over Subrecipient Monitoring Information on the federal program: Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP), Assistance Listing Number 21.023, U.S. Department of Treasury Criteria: Per 2 CFR Section 200.332(b), an evaluation of each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for purpose of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring must be performed. An entity should monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals per 2 CFR Section 200.332 (d) through (f). Condition: We noted the County had one subrecipient for this program. The County did not perform or document a subrecipient risk assessment or internal control assessment for the subrecipient. Additionally, we noted no on-site visit or desk review was performed of the subrecipient during the fiscal year. Context/Cause: The County did not perform a subrecipient risk assessment or internal control assessment and therefore the requirement for an on-site visit or desk review was not determined or performed. The County did review the subrecipient invoices for services rendered and determined the invoices were allowable and within the period of performance for the ERAP. Effects: Inadequate subrecipient monitoring could lead to unallowable costs or activities, cost occurring in the wrong period of performance, individuals receiving funding that were not eligible, or incorrect quarterly report and close out reports. Recommendation: We recommend that the County create a subrecipient monitoring policy to monitor federal awards in accordance with the contract and Uniform grant guidance. The subrecipient monitoring policy should include performing a risk assessment to determine the level of subrecipient monitoring required. Additionally, we recommend the County conduct site visits and/or perform a random sampling of charges based on the results of the risk assessment. Auditee’s Response: The County acknowledges the recommendation on subrecipient monitoring. An organization-wide documented policy is being developed by the newly established Grants Management program officers. The new policy will meet current Federal guidance on subrecipient monitoring and will include resources and recommendations for County Departments to perform a risk assessment, internal control assessment, onsite visits, and desk reviews as applicable. The Housing Department will perform a program closeout monitoring for this program in the coming months.
Failure to properly track grant expenditures. Federal programs impacted: 93.958 Block grants for community mental health services, 93.558 TANF DYS Questioned Costs: None Condition: The Clinic expended more than $750,000 in federal awards, triggering a single audit requirement, however when asked to prepare a SEFA/SESA multiple attempts were made and numbers changed numerous times throughout the audit. Client is unable to distinguish co-mingled federal and state funding and expenditures for DYS grants, one of the major programs tested. Client is able to maintain overall expenditures, but not on a segregated level. Appears tracking was done in the same manner as other program expenses. Client failed to maintain proper records to segregate federal and state funding as required by the Uniform Guidance. Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.329 states that one responsibility of the auditee is to monitor its activities under Federal awards. See also 200.332. Cause: Funding for the TANF DYS grant is received on a state and federal level. DHS is able to segregate in their tracking software but the Clinic belives they did not have the ability to separate these payements as they come from the same source and are often received in tandem, they did not have proper internal controls in place to segregate the funding received and related expenditures as required by the Uniform Guidance. Effect: Difficulty in establishing the SEFA/SESA, causing a delay in single audit testing. Co-mingling of federal and state funding used could present the possibility that expenses tested in single audit were paid for with the state portion of the grant. Recommendation: We recommend that the Clinic maintains an effort to track federal and state funding and expenditures separate from regular program expenditures, inquiring of granting agencies if needed by developing and implementing internal control policies related to grant funding and expenditure tracking. Management Response: Management believes it will be very difficult to segregate the fundings for the reasons listed above, but they mentioned they would request clarification from awarding agencies on which portion is federal and which is state in order to properly track.
Failure to properly track grant expenditures. Federal programs impacted: 93.958 Block grants for community mental health services, 93.558 TANF DYS Questioned Costs: None Condition: The Clinic expended more than $750,000 in federal awards, triggering a single audit requirement, however when asked to prepare a SEFA/SESA multiple attempts were made and numbers changed numerous times throughout the audit. Client is unable to distinguish co-mingled federal and state funding and expenditures for DYS grants, one of the major programs tested. Client is able to maintain overall expenditures, but not on a segregated level. Appears tracking was done in the same manner as other program expenses. Client failed to maintain proper records to segregate federal and state funding as required by the Uniform Guidance. Criteria: 2 CFR section 200.329 states that one responsibility of the auditee is to monitor its activities under Federal awards. See also 200.332. Cause: Funding for the TANF DYS grant is received on a state and federal level. DHS is able to segregate in their tracking software but the Clinic belives they did not have the ability to separate these payements as they come from the same source and are often received in tandem, they did not have proper internal controls in place to segregate the funding received and related expenditures as required by the Uniform Guidance. Effect: Difficulty in establishing the SEFA/SESA, causing a delay in single audit testing. Co-mingling of federal and state funding used could present the possibility that expenses tested in single audit were paid for with the state portion of the grant. Recommendation: We recommend that the Clinic maintains an effort to track federal and state funding and expenditures separate from regular program expenditures, inquiring of granting agencies if needed by developing and implementing internal control policies related to grant funding and expenditure tracking. Management Response: Management believes it will be very difficult to segregate the fundings for the reasons listed above, but they mentioned they would request clarification from awarding agencies on which portion is federal and which is state in order to properly track.
2023-001 – Subrecipient Information and Monitoring Grantor: Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) Passthrough Agency: Massachusetts Department of Public Health Program Name: Massachusetts Community Health Worker for Resilience Award Name: Community Health Workers for Public Health Response and Resilient Award Year: Various Award Number: INTF4207M03225031012 Assistance Listing Number: 93.495 Criteria The Uniform Guidance states that: a pass-through entity (PTE) must • Identify the Award and Applicable Requirements including clearly identify information to the subrecipient. • Evaluate Risk – Evaluate each subrecipient’s risk of noncompliance for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring related to the subaward (2 CFR section 200.332(b)). • Monitor – Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals (2 CFR sections 200.332(d) through (f)). Condition Through our testing of the subrecipient information and monitoring at the Alliance over the Massachusetts Community Health Worker for Resilience program, we selected four organizations to whom the Alliance passed federal funding through to during fiscal year 2023. For each of the four selections, the entity was not able to evidence that they provided all required information to subrecipients at the time of the subaward (or subsequent subaward modification), as per the OMB compliance supplement requirements. Specifically, as per the review of the sub-award agreement, we were not able to verify the below information was communicated to the subrecipient at the time of the execution of the subaward agreement: i) Sub-recipient's Unique Identity Number ii) The entity's Federal Award Identification Number iii) Name of Federal awarding agency iv) Contact information for awarding officials of CHA v) Assistance Listing Number and Title vi) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award In addition, it was noted that documentation of a risk assessment being performed prior to entering into the subcontract was not available for the four selections and there was no formal documentation of subsequent subrecipient monitoring. There was also no evidence of review of uniform guidance reports. Cause The Alliance has policies in place for subrecipient monitoring that address the communication of award information to the subrecipient, risk assessments and continued monitoring but due to lack of training and understanding, those policies were not executed properly on this award. Effect There was a lack of communication to the subrecipient regarding the subaward agreement. The lack of formal documentation of initial risk does not allow the Alliance to ensure consistency in their risk assessments of subrecipients nor does it allow for a formal annual reassessment of risk and a clear linking of these assessments to the level of subsequent subrecipient monitoring. Questioned Costs None noted. Recommendation We recommend the Alliance implement training and a template to be utilized for the communication of the subaward information as well as an initial risk assessment and a continuing reassessment. In addition to these tools, we recommend the Alliance consider the following: • Formalize procedures to communicate the subaward information to the subrecipient • Implementing a formal review of the initial assessment prior to entering into the agreement as well as continuing subrecipient risk reassessments, including review of Uniform Guidance Reports • Formalizing the monitoring that is expected when a subrecipient is categorized as high versus low risk and the departments/individuals responsible for such monitoring • Formalize the annual subrecipient risk assessment process and the criteria to be reviewed and ensure it includes all subrecipients. Input into this assessment should be obtained from various constituents, including the Key Personnel. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings.
Federal Program Information: Block Grants for Prevent and Treatment of Substance Abuse, ALN #COVID-19 - 93.959 Criteria: Requirements for pass-through-entities of federal awards as it relates to monitoring the activities of its subrecipients as specified in 2 CFR 200.332. Condition: The University did not comply with the terms of its subrecipient contracts in which they are required to obtain underlying expenditure detail prior to reimbursing the subrecipients from federal funds. Context: The University reimbursed four subrecipients without obtaining the detail of expenses incurred by the subrecipient. Payments were based on a narrative on progress towards the objectives or a prorated amount of the total award was paid to the subrecipient for the month. Questioned Cost: $0 Effect: Subrecipients received federal funds via the University for expenditures that did not have supporting expenditure detail at the time of reimbursement. Cause: The University did not enforce the contracts that they have with subrecipients, which state that cost detail must be submitted with each invoice. Final reporting requires expenditure detail to be provided by the subrecipient upon the completion of the contract period, however these subcontractors had not yet reached that milestone. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Crowe recommends the University require all subrecipients to submit cost detail that supports their request for reimbursement, as stated in the subrecipient agreements
Federal Program Information: Block Grants for Prevent and Treatment of Substance Abuse, ALN #COVID-19 - 93.959 Criteria: Requirements for pass-through-entities of federal awards as it relates to monitoring the activities of its subrecipients as specified in 2 CFR 200.332. Condition: The University did not comply with the terms of its subrecipient contracts in which they are required to obtain underlying expenditure detail prior to reimbursing the subrecipients from federal funds. Context: The University reimbursed four subrecipients without obtaining the detail of expenses incurred by the subrecipient. Payments were based on a narrative on progress towards the objectives or a prorated amount of the total award was paid to the subrecipient for the month. Questioned Cost: $0 Effect: Subrecipients received federal funds via the University for expenditures that did not have supporting expenditure detail at the time of reimbursement. Cause: The University did not enforce the contracts that they have with subrecipients, which state that cost detail must be submitted with each invoice. Final reporting requires expenditure detail to be provided by the subrecipient upon the completion of the contract period, however these subcontractors had not yet reached that milestone. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Crowe recommends the University require all subrecipients to submit cost detail that supports their request for reimbursement, as stated in the subrecipient agreements
Federal Program Information: Block Grants for Prevent and Treatment of Substance Abuse, ALN #COVID-19 - 93.959 Criteria: Requirements for pass-through-entities of federal awards as it relates to monitoring the activities of its subrecipients as specified in 2 CFR 200.332. Condition: The University did not comply with the terms of its subrecipient contracts in which they are required to obtain underlying expenditure detail prior to reimbursing the subrecipients from federal funds. Context: The University reimbursed four subrecipients without obtaining the detail of expenses incurred by the subrecipient. Payments were based on a narrative on progress towards the objectives or a prorated amount of the total award was paid to the subrecipient for the month. Questioned Cost: $0 Effect: Subrecipients received federal funds via the University for expenditures that did not have supporting expenditure detail at the time of reimbursement. Cause: The University did not enforce the contracts that they have with subrecipients, which state that cost detail must be submitted with each invoice. Final reporting requires expenditure detail to be provided by the subrecipient upon the completion of the contract period, however these subcontractors had not yet reached that milestone. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Crowe recommends the University require all subrecipients to submit cost detail that supports their request for reimbursement, as stated in the subrecipient agreements
Federal Program Information: Block Grants for Prevent and Treatment of Substance Abuse, ALN #COVID-19 - 93.959 Criteria: Requirements for pass-through-entities of federal awards as it relates to monitoring the activities of its subrecipients as specified in 2 CFR 200.332. Condition: The University did not comply with the terms of its subrecipient contracts in which they are required to obtain underlying expenditure detail prior to reimbursing the subrecipients from federal funds. Context: The University reimbursed four subrecipients without obtaining the detail of expenses incurred by the subrecipient. Payments were based on a narrative on progress towards the objectives or a prorated amount of the total award was paid to the subrecipient for the month. Questioned Cost: $0 Effect: Subrecipients received federal funds via the University for expenditures that did not have supporting expenditure detail at the time of reimbursement. Cause: The University did not enforce the contracts that they have with subrecipients, which state that cost detail must be submitted with each invoice. Final reporting requires expenditure detail to be provided by the subrecipient upon the completion of the contract period, however these subcontractors had not yet reached that milestone. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Crowe recommends the University require all subrecipients to submit cost detail that supports their request for reimbursement, as stated in the subrecipient agreements
Federal Program Information: Block Grants for Prevent and Treatment of Substance Abuse, ALN #COVID-19 - 93.959 Criteria: Requirements for pass-through-entities of federal awards as it relates to monitoring the activities of its subrecipients as specified in 2 CFR 200.332. Condition: The University did not comply with the terms of its subrecipient contracts in which they are required to obtain underlying expenditure detail prior to reimbursing the subrecipients from federal funds. Context: The University reimbursed four subrecipients without obtaining the detail of expenses incurred by the subrecipient. Payments were based on a narrative on progress towards the objectives or a prorated amount of the total award was paid to the subrecipient for the month. Questioned Cost: $0 Effect: Subrecipients received federal funds via the University for expenditures that did not have supporting expenditure detail at the time of reimbursement. Cause: The University did not enforce the contracts that they have with subrecipients, which state that cost detail must be submitted with each invoice. Final reporting requires expenditure detail to be provided by the subrecipient upon the completion of the contract period, however these subcontractors had not yet reached that milestone. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Crowe recommends the University require all subrecipients to submit cost detail that supports their request for reimbursement, as stated in the subrecipient agreements
Federal Program Information: Block Grants for Prevent and Treatment of Substance Abuse, ALN #COVID-19 - 93.959 Criteria: Requirements for pass-through-entities of federal awards as it relates to monitoring the activities of its subrecipients as specified in 2 CFR 200.332. Condition: The University did not comply with the terms of its subrecipient contracts in which they are required to obtain underlying expenditure detail prior to reimbursing the subrecipients from federal funds. Context: The University reimbursed four subrecipients without obtaining the detail of expenses incurred by the subrecipient. Payments were based on a narrative on progress towards the objectives or a prorated amount of the total award was paid to the subrecipient for the month. Questioned Cost: $0 Effect: Subrecipients received federal funds via the University for expenditures that did not have supporting expenditure detail at the time of reimbursement. Cause: The University did not enforce the contracts that they have with subrecipients, which state that cost detail must be submitted with each invoice. Final reporting requires expenditure detail to be provided by the subrecipient upon the completion of the contract period, however these subcontractors had not yet reached that milestone. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: Crowe recommends the University require all subrecipients to submit cost detail that supports their request for reimbursement, as stated in the subrecipient agreements
Finding 2023-002: Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) Reporting Information on the Federal Programs: Assistance Listing Number 19.518 Criteria: The FFATA Subaward Reporting System (FSRS) is the reporting tool Federal prime awardees use to capture and report subaward and executive compensation data regarding their firsttier subawards to meet the FFATA reporting requirements. Prime Awardees awarded a Federal grant are required to file a FFATA sub-award report by the end of the month following the month in which the prime awardee awards any sub-grant equal to or greater than $30,000. Criteria (continued): CFR 200.332(a) states that entities must ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes information related to the Federal award project description, as required to be responsive to FFATA. CFR 200.341(c) states that the entity must provide the information required under FFATA to the Federal website established to fulfill the requirements of FFATA, and update or notify any other relevant governmentwide systems or entities of any indications of poor performance (or issues related to suspension or debarment). Condition: Asylum Access has not complied with the aforementioned criteria (we noted no evidence of a FFATA reporting process). Cause: Asylum Access does not maintain documented policies regarding FFATA reporting and therefore compliance with Federal regulations cannot be determined. Context: Absent proper policies and procedures, Asylum Access is at risk of entering into sub-awards under Federal awards that were not properly reported and therefore could result in noncompliance with FFATA requirements. Effect: Asylum Access did not comply with the requirements noted above. Questioned Costs: None noted. Identification as a Repeat Finding: N/A Recommendation: We recommend Asylum Access establish a FFATA reporting policy to become compliant with the aforementioned requirements. We further recommend it ensure all staff are properly trained with respect to the new policy to ensure compliance. In cases where Asylum Access is exempt from reporting or qualifies for a reporting waiver, that conclusion should be documented in its subgrantee records.