Methods for collection, transmission, and storage of information.
2022-018 The Office of Financial Management did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were used only for allowable activities. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $300,000,000 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) provides direct payments to states to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic or its negative economic effects. Washington has received approximately $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Department). Federal law stipulates that states may use SLFRF funds to: ? Support public health expenditures, including COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts ? Address negative economic impacts caused by the public health emergency ? Replace lost public sector revenue ? Provide premium pay for essential workers ? Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure States may only use funds to cover costs incurred during the period of performance, which began on March 3, 2021, and ends on December 31, 2024. Under the Department?s final rule, SLFRF recipients could use funds to replace lost public sector revenue to provide government services. Recipients could elect a one-time standard allowance of $10 million to spend on the provision of government services during the grant?s period of performance. Alternatively, SLFRF recipients could calculate lost revenue based on a formula established by the Department to determine the amount of SLFRF funds that can be used for the provision of government services. Washington chose to calculate its lost revenue rather than used the standard allowance. The calculated amount of revenue loss determines the limit of SLFRF funds that can be used to provide government services by a recipient. For reporting purposes on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the aggregate expenditures for all eligible use categories must be reported, not the result of the revenue loss calculation or the standard allowance. Washington received the first half ($2.2 billion) of its total $4.4 billion SLFRF allocation in May of 2021. When received, the funds were accounted for in the state?s Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund (Fund 706). Washington State Substitute Senate Bill 5165, section 408, included distributions totaling $600 million from Fund 706 into various state transportation-related accounts. According to the Office, the purpose of these distributions was to compensate for revenue losses in state fiscal years 2020 and 2021 relative to revenues collected in state fiscal year 2019 and to be used to maintain government services. The Office attributed $300 million of this as SLFRF expenditures for transportation related accounts on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls and did not comply with requirements related to the SLFRF revenue loss provision. While SLFRF funds are allowed to replace lost public sector revenues, the State was required to identify actual expenditures that were provided for government services. At the time of audit, the State had not identified such expenditures. Rather, the state asserted that all expenditures in the Transportation accounts receiving the SLFRF funds were appropriated for government services and, therefore, there was no doubt as to the allowability of the use of funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office does not believe federal requirements and the Department?s final rule required the State to separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures claimed. It is the Office?s position that all expenditures in the Transportation related accounts were for government services and, therefore, the state had sufficient expenditures to meet the grant requirement. During the audit, the Office contacted the Department to obtain guidance on the matter. The Office cited the Department?s FAQ Question 13.15, which states in part, ?recipients should not deviate from their established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, and that they should expend and account for the funds in accordance with laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the recipient?s own funds.? A Department representative acknowledged this FAQ and said the Department does not have additional specific requirements about how recipients should internally track their use of SLFRF funds used for revenue replacement. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without a population of actual expenditures to audit, we could not design tests to verify costs charged to the grant were only for allowable activities, met cost principles, and were incurred during the grant?s period of performance. In our judgment, without identifying the specific expenditures charged to the SLFRF, the Office did not comply with federal requirements. Therefore, we are questioning $300 million in costs that were not supported by specifically identified expenditures for government services. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its federal expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Office: ? Identify the actual government service expenditures that are the basis for the $300 million in SLFRF expenditures recorded on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA ? Review the supporting documentation for the expenditures to ensure they meet compliance requirements for the SLFRF and are adequately documented, while also documenting the details of this review ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office?s Response The Office does not concur with the audit finding. The state of Washington created a separate fund to track the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) expenditures. The state, through legislation, approved the transfer from the SLFRF account to various state transportation accounts. Each transportation account that received SLFRF funds was established in statute and is for a specific ?government service? purpose. Therefore, all payments from those accounts would be considered an actual government service expenditure. The U.S. Department of Treasury FAQ 3.2 states that ?Government services generally include any service traditionally provided by a government, unless Treasury has stated otherwise.? We reaffirm that all expenditures from the transportation accounts that received the SLFRF funds were used to maintain government services. The State Administrative and Accounting Manual requires all state agencies to establish internal controls over payments for goods and services, including ensuring payments are lawful and for proper purposes, reviewing payments to ensure they are supported, as well as documenting the review of all payments. State agencies continued to follow their established internal controls to ensure expenditures from the transportation accounts were proper and allowable. Additionally, the Office followed consistent policies and practices regarding the incurrence of costs in the transportation accounts for both non-SLFRF and SLFRF funds, which complied with federal guidance. We disagree that the total amount of lost revenue transferred to the transportation accounts should be considered questioned costs because the auditors were unable to design tests for compliance. The following table lists the accounts and the amounts received from SLFRF during fiscal year 2022. We know all expenditures in these accounts are for government services, and therefore are allowable costs for the program. Account Authority Amount transferred from Account 706 (CSLFRF) 1 Account 039 - Aeronautics Account RCW 82.42.090 $ 388,500.00 2 Account 081 - State Patrol Highway Account RCW 46.68.030 $ 6,179,000.00 3 Account 082 - Motorcycle Safety Education Account RCW 46.68.065 $ 9,000.00 4 Fund 099 - Puget Sound Capital Construction Account RCW 47.60.505 $ 1,446,000.00 5 Account 09H - Transportation Partnership Account RCW 46.68.290 $ 19,773,500.00 6 Account 102 - Rural Arterial Trust Account RCW 36.79.020 $ 1,546,000.00 7 Account 106 - Highway Safety Account RCW 46.68.060 $ 4,109,500.00 8 Account 108 - Motor Vehicle Account RCW 46.68.070 $ 49,708,000.00 9 Fund 109 - Puget Sound Ferry Operations Account RCW 47.60.530 $ 42,983,000.00 10 Fund 16J - State Route Number 520 Corridor Account RCW 47.56.875 $ 29,783,500.00 11 Account 17P - SR520 Civil Penalties Account RCW 47.56.876 $ 2,721,000.00 12 Account 144 - Transportation Improvement Account RCW 47.26.084 $ 7,922,000.00 13 Account 186 - County Arterial Preservation Acct RCW 46.68.090 $ 969,500.00 14 Account 20H - Connecting Washington Account RCW 46.68.395 $ 33,831,500.00 15 Account 215 - Special Category C Account RCW 46.68.090 $ 1,987,500.00 16 Account 218 - Multimodal Transportation Account RCW 47.66.070 $ 57,805,500.00 17 Account 511 - Tacoma Narrows Toll Bridge Account RCW 47.56.165 $ 7,853,500.00 18 Account 550 - Transportation 2003 Account RCW 46.68.280 $ 14,340,500.00 19 Account 595 - I-405 and SR-167 Express Toll Lanes Acct RCW 47.56.884 $ 16,446,500.00 20 Account 780 - School Zone Safety Account RCW 46.61.440 $ 196,500.00 $ 300,000,000.00 We requested that the auditors perform testing of the entire population of expenditures in the transportation accounts for compliance. Questioned costs, if any, could have been identified through relevant audit procedures. During multiple trainings offered by the U.S. Treasury, there has been communication that the grantor will be working with grant recipients through ongoing desk audits to ensure no questioned costs are required to be repaid. The Office will work with the legislature to ensure SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. Auditor?s Remarks We believe that the federal requirement is that SLFRF recipients must separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures stated on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Furthermore, that is the practice used by the State for all other federal programs. We appreciate that the Office will make efforts to work with the Legislature to ensure future SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. We reaffirm our finding and will follow-up on the Office?s corrective actions in the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. 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 302, Financial management, states in part: The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see also 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337) (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, federal award identification number and year, name of the Federal agency, and name of the pass-through entity, if any. (3) Records that identify adequately the source of the application of funds for federally-funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. Title U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, states in part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings.
2022-018 The Office of Financial Management did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were used only for allowable activities. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $300,000,000 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) provides direct payments to states to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic or its negative economic effects. Washington has received approximately $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Department). Federal law stipulates that states may use SLFRF funds to: ? Support public health expenditures, including COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts ? Address negative economic impacts caused by the public health emergency ? Replace lost public sector revenue ? Provide premium pay for essential workers ? Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure States may only use funds to cover costs incurred during the period of performance, which began on March 3, 2021, and ends on December 31, 2024. Under the Department?s final rule, SLFRF recipients could use funds to replace lost public sector revenue to provide government services. Recipients could elect a one-time standard allowance of $10 million to spend on the provision of government services during the grant?s period of performance. Alternatively, SLFRF recipients could calculate lost revenue based on a formula established by the Department to determine the amount of SLFRF funds that can be used for the provision of government services. Washington chose to calculate its lost revenue rather than used the standard allowance. The calculated amount of revenue loss determines the limit of SLFRF funds that can be used to provide government services by a recipient. For reporting purposes on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the aggregate expenditures for all eligible use categories must be reported, not the result of the revenue loss calculation or the standard allowance. Washington received the first half ($2.2 billion) of its total $4.4 billion SLFRF allocation in May of 2021. When received, the funds were accounted for in the state?s Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund (Fund 706). Washington State Substitute Senate Bill 5165, section 408, included distributions totaling $600 million from Fund 706 into various state transportation-related accounts. According to the Office, the purpose of these distributions was to compensate for revenue losses in state fiscal years 2020 and 2021 relative to revenues collected in state fiscal year 2019 and to be used to maintain government services. The Office attributed $300 million of this as SLFRF expenditures for transportation related accounts on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls and did not comply with requirements related to the SLFRF revenue loss provision. While SLFRF funds are allowed to replace lost public sector revenues, the State was required to identify actual expenditures that were provided for government services. At the time of audit, the State had not identified such expenditures. Rather, the state asserted that all expenditures in the Transportation accounts receiving the SLFRF funds were appropriated for government services and, therefore, there was no doubt as to the allowability of the use of funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office does not believe federal requirements and the Department?s final rule required the State to separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures claimed. It is the Office?s position that all expenditures in the Transportation related accounts were for government services and, therefore, the state had sufficient expenditures to meet the grant requirement. During the audit, the Office contacted the Department to obtain guidance on the matter. The Office cited the Department?s FAQ Question 13.15, which states in part, ?recipients should not deviate from their established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, and that they should expend and account for the funds in accordance with laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the recipient?s own funds.? A Department representative acknowledged this FAQ and said the Department does not have additional specific requirements about how recipients should internally track their use of SLFRF funds used for revenue replacement. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without a population of actual expenditures to audit, we could not design tests to verify costs charged to the grant were only for allowable activities, met cost principles, and were incurred during the grant?s period of performance. In our judgment, without identifying the specific expenditures charged to the SLFRF, the Office did not comply with federal requirements. Therefore, we are questioning $300 million in costs that were not supported by specifically identified expenditures for government services. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its federal expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Office: ? Identify the actual government service expenditures that are the basis for the $300 million in SLFRF expenditures recorded on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA ? Review the supporting documentation for the expenditures to ensure they meet compliance requirements for the SLFRF and are adequately documented, while also documenting the details of this review ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office?s Response The Office does not concur with the audit finding. The state of Washington created a separate fund to track the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) expenditures. The state, through legislation, approved the transfer from the SLFRF account to various state transportation accounts. Each transportation account that received SLFRF funds was established in statute and is for a specific ?government service? purpose. Therefore, all payments from those accounts would be considered an actual government service expenditure. The U.S. Department of Treasury FAQ 3.2 states that ?Government services generally include any service traditionally provided by a government, unless Treasury has stated otherwise.? We reaffirm that all expenditures from the transportation accounts that received the SLFRF funds were used to maintain government services. The State Administrative and Accounting Manual requires all state agencies to establish internal controls over payments for goods and services, including ensuring payments are lawful and for proper purposes, reviewing payments to ensure they are supported, as well as documenting the review of all payments. State agencies continued to follow their established internal controls to ensure expenditures from the transportation accounts were proper and allowable. Additionally, the Office followed consistent policies and practices regarding the incurrence of costs in the transportation accounts for both non-SLFRF and SLFRF funds, which complied with federal guidance. We disagree that the total amount of lost revenue transferred to the transportation accounts should be considered questioned costs because the auditors were unable to design tests for compliance. The following table lists the accounts and the amounts received from SLFRF during fiscal year 2022. We know all expenditures in these accounts are for government services, and therefore are allowable costs for the program. Account Authority Amount transferred from Account 706 (CSLFRF) 1 Account 039 - Aeronautics Account RCW 82.42.090 $ 388,500.00 2 Account 081 - State Patrol Highway Account RCW 46.68.030 $ 6,179,000.00 3 Account 082 - Motorcycle Safety Education Account RCW 46.68.065 $ 9,000.00 4 Fund 099 - Puget Sound Capital Construction Account RCW 47.60.505 $ 1,446,000.00 5 Account 09H - Transportation Partnership Account RCW 46.68.290 $ 19,773,500.00 6 Account 102 - Rural Arterial Trust Account RCW 36.79.020 $ 1,546,000.00 7 Account 106 - Highway Safety Account RCW 46.68.060 $ 4,109,500.00 8 Account 108 - Motor Vehicle Account RCW 46.68.070 $ 49,708,000.00 9 Fund 109 - Puget Sound Ferry Operations Account RCW 47.60.530 $ 42,983,000.00 10 Fund 16J - State Route Number 520 Corridor Account RCW 47.56.875 $ 29,783,500.00 11 Account 17P - SR520 Civil Penalties Account RCW 47.56.876 $ 2,721,000.00 12 Account 144 - Transportation Improvement Account RCW 47.26.084 $ 7,922,000.00 13 Account 186 - County Arterial Preservation Acct RCW 46.68.090 $ 969,500.00 14 Account 20H - Connecting Washington Account RCW 46.68.395 $ 33,831,500.00 15 Account 215 - Special Category C Account RCW 46.68.090 $ 1,987,500.00 16 Account 218 - Multimodal Transportation Account RCW 47.66.070 $ 57,805,500.00 17 Account 511 - Tacoma Narrows Toll Bridge Account RCW 47.56.165 $ 7,853,500.00 18 Account 550 - Transportation 2003 Account RCW 46.68.280 $ 14,340,500.00 19 Account 595 - I-405 and SR-167 Express Toll Lanes Acct RCW 47.56.884 $ 16,446,500.00 20 Account 780 - School Zone Safety Account RCW 46.61.440 $ 196,500.00 $ 300,000,000.00 We requested that the auditors perform testing of the entire population of expenditures in the transportation accounts for compliance. Questioned costs, if any, could have been identified through relevant audit procedures. During multiple trainings offered by the U.S. Treasury, there has been communication that the grantor will be working with grant recipients through ongoing desk audits to ensure no questioned costs are required to be repaid. The Office will work with the legislature to ensure SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. Auditor?s Remarks We believe that the federal requirement is that SLFRF recipients must separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures stated on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Furthermore, that is the practice used by the State for all other federal programs. We appreciate that the Office will make efforts to work with the Legislature to ensure future SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. We reaffirm our finding and will follow-up on the Office?s corrective actions in the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. 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 302, Financial management, states in part: The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see also 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337) (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, federal award identification number and year, name of the Federal agency, and name of the pass-through entity, if any. (3) Records that identify adequately the source of the application of funds for federally-funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. Title U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, states in part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings.
2022-018 The Office of Financial Management did not have adequate internal controls over and did not comply with requirements to ensure Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were used only for allowable activities. Assistance Listing Number and Title: 21.027 COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Federal Grantor Name: U.S. Department of the Treasury Federal Award/Contract Number: None Pass-through Entity Name: None Pass-through Award/Contract Number: None Applicable Compliance Component: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Period of Performance Known Questioned Cost Amount: $300,000,000 Background The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) provides direct payments to states to respond to the COVID-19 pandemic or its negative economic effects. Washington has received approximately $4.4 billion of SLFRF money from the U.S. Department of the Treasury (Department). Federal law stipulates that states may use SLFRF funds to: ? Support public health expenditures, including COVID-19 prevention and mitigation efforts ? Address negative economic impacts caused by the public health emergency ? Replace lost public sector revenue ? Provide premium pay for essential workers ? Invest in water, sewer, and broadband infrastructure States may only use funds to cover costs incurred during the period of performance, which began on March 3, 2021, and ends on December 31, 2024. Under the Department?s final rule, SLFRF recipients could use funds to replace lost public sector revenue to provide government services. Recipients could elect a one-time standard allowance of $10 million to spend on the provision of government services during the grant?s period of performance. Alternatively, SLFRF recipients could calculate lost revenue based on a formula established by the Department to determine the amount of SLFRF funds that can be used for the provision of government services. Washington chose to calculate its lost revenue rather than used the standard allowance. The calculated amount of revenue loss determines the limit of SLFRF funds that can be used to provide government services by a recipient. For reporting purposes on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA), the aggregate expenditures for all eligible use categories must be reported, not the result of the revenue loss calculation or the standard allowance. Washington received the first half ($2.2 billion) of its total $4.4 billion SLFRF allocation in May of 2021. When received, the funds were accounted for in the state?s Coronavirus State Fiscal Recovery Fund (Fund 706). Washington State Substitute Senate Bill 5165, section 408, included distributions totaling $600 million from Fund 706 into various state transportation-related accounts. According to the Office, the purpose of these distributions was to compensate for revenue losses in state fiscal years 2020 and 2021 relative to revenues collected in state fiscal year 2019 and to be used to maintain government services. The Office attributed $300 million of this as SLFRF expenditures for transportation related accounts on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA. Federal regulations require recipients to establish and follow internal controls to ensure compliance with program requirements. These controls include understanding grant requirements and monitoring the effectiveness of established controls. Description of Condition The Office did not have adequate internal controls and did not comply with requirements related to the SLFRF revenue loss provision. While SLFRF funds are allowed to replace lost public sector revenues, the State was required to identify actual expenditures that were provided for government services. At the time of audit, the State had not identified such expenditures. Rather, the state asserted that all expenditures in the Transportation accounts receiving the SLFRF funds were appropriated for government services and, therefore, there was no doubt as to the allowability of the use of funds. We consider this internal control deficiency to be a material weakness, which led to material noncompliance. This issue was not reported as a finding in the prior audit. Cause of Condition The Office does not believe federal requirements and the Department?s final rule required the State to separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures claimed. It is the Office?s position that all expenditures in the Transportation related accounts were for government services and, therefore, the state had sufficient expenditures to meet the grant requirement. During the audit, the Office contacted the Department to obtain guidance on the matter. The Office cited the Department?s FAQ Question 13.15, which states in part, ?recipients should not deviate from their established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, and that they should expend and account for the funds in accordance with laws and procedures for expending and accounting for the recipient?s own funds.? A Department representative acknowledged this FAQ and said the Department does not have additional specific requirements about how recipients should internally track their use of SLFRF funds used for revenue replacement. Effect of Condition and Questioned Costs Without a population of actual expenditures to audit, we could not design tests to verify costs charged to the grant were only for allowable activities, met cost principles, and were incurred during the grant?s period of performance. In our judgment, without identifying the specific expenditures charged to the SLFRF, the Office did not comply with federal requirements. Therefore, we are questioning $300 million in costs that were not supported by specifically identified expenditures for government services. We question costs when we find an agency has not complied with grant regulations or when it does not have adequate documentation to support its federal expenditures. Recommendations We recommend the Office: ? Identify the actual government service expenditures that are the basis for the $300 million in SLFRF expenditures recorded on the State?s fiscal year 2022 SEFA ? Review the supporting documentation for the expenditures to ensure they meet compliance requirements for the SLFRF and are adequately documented, while also documenting the details of this review ? Consult with the grantor to discuss whether the questioned costs identified in the audit should be repaid Office?s Response The Office does not concur with the audit finding. The state of Washington created a separate fund to track the Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) expenditures. The state, through legislation, approved the transfer from the SLFRF account to various state transportation accounts. Each transportation account that received SLFRF funds was established in statute and is for a specific ?government service? purpose. Therefore, all payments from those accounts would be considered an actual government service expenditure. The U.S. Department of Treasury FAQ 3.2 states that ?Government services generally include any service traditionally provided by a government, unless Treasury has stated otherwise.? We reaffirm that all expenditures from the transportation accounts that received the SLFRF funds were used to maintain government services. The State Administrative and Accounting Manual requires all state agencies to establish internal controls over payments for goods and services, including ensuring payments are lawful and for proper purposes, reviewing payments to ensure they are supported, as well as documenting the review of all payments. State agencies continued to follow their established internal controls to ensure expenditures from the transportation accounts were proper and allowable. Additionally, the Office followed consistent policies and practices regarding the incurrence of costs in the transportation accounts for both non-SLFRF and SLFRF funds, which complied with federal guidance. We disagree that the total amount of lost revenue transferred to the transportation accounts should be considered questioned costs because the auditors were unable to design tests for compliance. The following table lists the accounts and the amounts received from SLFRF during fiscal year 2022. We know all expenditures in these accounts are for government services, and therefore are allowable costs for the program. Account Authority Amount transferred from Account 706 (CSLFRF) 1 Account 039 - Aeronautics Account RCW 82.42.090 $ 388,500.00 2 Account 081 - State Patrol Highway Account RCW 46.68.030 $ 6,179,000.00 3 Account 082 - Motorcycle Safety Education Account RCW 46.68.065 $ 9,000.00 4 Fund 099 - Puget Sound Capital Construction Account RCW 47.60.505 $ 1,446,000.00 5 Account 09H - Transportation Partnership Account RCW 46.68.290 $ 19,773,500.00 6 Account 102 - Rural Arterial Trust Account RCW 36.79.020 $ 1,546,000.00 7 Account 106 - Highway Safety Account RCW 46.68.060 $ 4,109,500.00 8 Account 108 - Motor Vehicle Account RCW 46.68.070 $ 49,708,000.00 9 Fund 109 - Puget Sound Ferry Operations Account RCW 47.60.530 $ 42,983,000.00 10 Fund 16J - State Route Number 520 Corridor Account RCW 47.56.875 $ 29,783,500.00 11 Account 17P - SR520 Civil Penalties Account RCW 47.56.876 $ 2,721,000.00 12 Account 144 - Transportation Improvement Account RCW 47.26.084 $ 7,922,000.00 13 Account 186 - County Arterial Preservation Acct RCW 46.68.090 $ 969,500.00 14 Account 20H - Connecting Washington Account RCW 46.68.395 $ 33,831,500.00 15 Account 215 - Special Category C Account RCW 46.68.090 $ 1,987,500.00 16 Account 218 - Multimodal Transportation Account RCW 47.66.070 $ 57,805,500.00 17 Account 511 - Tacoma Narrows Toll Bridge Account RCW 47.56.165 $ 7,853,500.00 18 Account 550 - Transportation 2003 Account RCW 46.68.280 $ 14,340,500.00 19 Account 595 - I-405 and SR-167 Express Toll Lanes Acct RCW 47.56.884 $ 16,446,500.00 20 Account 780 - School Zone Safety Account RCW 46.61.440 $ 196,500.00 $ 300,000,000.00 We requested that the auditors perform testing of the entire population of expenditures in the transportation accounts for compliance. Questioned costs, if any, could have been identified through relevant audit procedures. During multiple trainings offered by the U.S. Treasury, there has been communication that the grantor will be working with grant recipients through ongoing desk audits to ensure no questioned costs are required to be repaid. The Office will work with the legislature to ensure SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. Auditor?s Remarks We believe that the federal requirement is that SLFRF recipients must separately identify actual expenditures that equal the amount of SLFRF expenditures stated on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards. Furthermore, that is the practice used by the State for all other federal programs. We appreciate that the Office will make efforts to work with the Legislature to ensure future SLFRF funds can be tracked separately from other funds. We reaffirm our finding and will follow-up on the Office?s corrective actions in the next audit. Applicable Laws and Regulations 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings. Title 2 CFR Part 200, Uniform Guidance, section 303, Internal controls, describes the requirements for auditees to maintain internal controls over federal programs and comply with federal program requirements. The American Institute of Certified Public Accountants defines significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in its Codification of Statements on Auditing Standards, section 935, Compliance Audits, paragraph 11. 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 302, Financial management, states in part: The financial management system of each non-Federal entity must provide for the following (see also 200.334, 200.335, 200.336, and 200.337) (1) Identification, in its accounts, of all Federal awards received and expended and the Federal programs under which they were received. Federal program and Federal award identification must include, as applicable, the Assistance Listings title and number, federal award identification number and year, name of the Federal agency, and name of the pass-through entity, if any. (3) Records that identify adequately the source of the application of funds for federally-funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income and interest and be supported by source documentation. Title U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), section 403, Factors affecting allowability of costs, states in part: Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented. Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) establishes definitions for improper payments. Part 200.410 establishes requirements for the collection of unallowable costs. 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 516, Audit findings, establishes reporting requirements for audit findings.