U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.
U.S. Departments and Pass-Through Programs with various assistance listings as listed in the Schedule of Expenditures for the Research and Development Cluster Subrecipient Monitoring Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance and Material Noncompliance Grant Award Number: Potentially affects all grant awards with pass-through payments included under the Research and Development Cluster for DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) section 200.332 requires that: o Pass-through entities establish policies for subrecipient monitoring that have a risk-based approach to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities evaluate the risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate monitoring. o Pass-through entities ensure that every subaward includes certain information at the time of the subaward. o Pass-through entities monitor the activities of a 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. o Pass-through entities verify every subrecipient is audited as required by Uniform Guidance, issue management decisions for audit findings, as applicable, and ensure the subrecipient take timely corrective action on all audit findings, as applicable. Condition: Subrecipient monitoring policies are not documented, risk assessment was not performed, subawards were missing required information, monitoring of activities was not performed, and subrecipient audit reports were not monitored or reviewed. Cause: Adequate internal controls were not in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements for the following institutions: o Desert Research Institute (DRI) o Nevada State University (NSU) o University of Nevada, Las Vegas (UNLV) o University of Nevada, Reno (UNR) Effect: Noncompliance may occur at a subrecipient and not be detected. Questioned Costs: None Context/Sampling: A nonstatistical sample of 61 subrecipients out of a population greater than 250 across the Nevada System of Higher Education was selected for testing. The following errors were noted by institution: Desert Research Institute: DRI had six subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Risk assessment was not performed for the six subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that five of the subrecipients were using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. Nevada State University: NSU had one subrecipient selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o NSU does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for the subrecipient selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o NSU did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. NSU did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required. University of Nevada, Las Vegas: UNLV had 29 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o UNLV does not have written subrecipient monitoring policies. o Risk assessment was not performed for 15 of the subrecipients selected for testing. o Subawards were missing required information for 13 of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o Monitoring activities were not documented adequately for 28 subrecipients to provide for reasonable assurance that the subrecipient was using the award for authorized purposes and meeting performance objectives. o UNLV did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNLV did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. University of Nevada, Reno: UNR had 25 subrecipients selected for testing out of the sample of 61. o Subawards were missing required information for two of the subawards to subrecipients selected for testing. o UNR did not have a mechanism in place to verify and monitor subrecipient audit reports timely. UNR did not review the subrecipient audit report or ensure an audit was not required for 23 subrecipients. Repeat Finding from Prior Year: No Recommendation: We recommend NSU and UNLV establish subrecipient monitoring policies. In addition, we recommend DRI, NSU, UNLV, and UNR enhance internal controls to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. Views of Responsible Officials: The Desert Research Institute agrees with this finding. The Nevada State University agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Las Vegas agrees with this finding. The University of Nevada, Reno agrees with this finding.