Criteria: Per section 3401(a) of the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act of 2021, ARP funds shall be available for reimbursement for: (a) payroll of public transportation entities, (b) operating costs to maintain service due to lost revenue due as a result of the coronavirus public health emergency, and (c) paying administrative leave of operations or contractor personnel due to reductions of service. In addition, Title 2 CFR § 200.303 requires the recipient of federal funds establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Moreover, Title 2 CFR 200.403 (a) and (b) state that except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, and (b) conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in 2 CFR part 200, subpart E or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. Condition: As part of audit procedures over a sample of 25 non-payroll transactions we identified one transaction for $8,510 relating to legislative consulting services which was not an allowable activity under the grant agreement. As a result of further review of the general ledger account in which the above item was recorded, we identified 13 additional transactions for similar unallowable activities representing $581,987. We did not identify any indirect costs that were associated with these unallowable costs. Total questioned cost identified through the audit procedures performed was approximately $590,403. Total expenditures for the Federal Transit Cluster were approximately $243,258,597. Cause: Historically, grants received by METRO have generally been specific to specified projects, which allowed METRO to establish projects in advance for tracking, accumulating, and approving/monitoring costs incurred. As such, METRO’s internal controls are designed with this project-based focus in mind. In the current year METRO received this grant which allows them to seek reimbursement for certain prior year costs not already reimbursed by the Federal government. Given the broad nature of costs allowed under this grant and the ability to seek reimbursement for prior year costs, management identified costs which were included in general ledger accounts not typically subject to detailed allowability assessments in accordance with federal requirements, and as a result METRO inadvertently placed an increased reliance on the knowledge of grants department personnel to understand the nature of general ledger accounts and transactions, as well as an increased reliance on reviewers identifying unallowable costs in the summary of expenditures submitted for reimbursement. Effect: Certain of the costs incurred and submitted for reimbursement by METRO were unallowable. Auditor’s Recommendation: METRO should establish appropriate processes and controls to guide grant personnel in the aggregation of grant costs. In particular, management should focus on the processes and controls associated with grants for which predefined projects are not established in advance of incurring grant related expenditures.
Criteria: Per section 3401(a) of the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act of 2021, ARP funds shall be available for reimbursement for: (a) payroll of public transportation entities, (b) operating costs to maintain service due to lost revenue due as a result of the coronavirus public health emergency, and (c) paying administrative leave of operations or contractor personnel due to reductions of service. In addition, Title 2 CFR § 200.303 requires the recipient of federal funds establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-federal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. Moreover, Title 2 CFR 200.403 (a) and (b) state that except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under 2 CFR part 200, subpart E, and (b) conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in 2 CFR part 200, subpart E or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. Condition: As part of audit procedures over a sample of 25 non-payroll transactions we identified one transaction for $8,510 relating to legislative consulting services which was not an allowable activity under the grant agreement. As a result of further review of the general ledger account in which the above item was recorded, we identified 13 additional transactions for similar unallowable activities representing $581,987. We did not identify any indirect costs that were associated with these unallowable costs. Total questioned cost identified through the audit procedures performed was approximately $590,403. Total expenditures for the Federal Transit Cluster were approximately $243,258,597. Cause: Historically, grants received by METRO have generally been specific to specified projects, which allowed METRO to establish projects in advance for tracking, accumulating, and approving/monitoring costs incurred. As such, METRO’s internal controls are designed with this project-based focus in mind. In the current year METRO received this grant which allows them to seek reimbursement for certain prior year costs not already reimbursed by the Federal government. Given the broad nature of costs allowed under this grant and the ability to seek reimbursement for prior year costs, management identified costs which were included in general ledger accounts not typically subject to detailed allowability assessments in accordance with federal requirements, and as a result METRO inadvertently placed an increased reliance on the knowledge of grants department personnel to understand the nature of general ledger accounts and transactions, as well as an increased reliance on reviewers identifying unallowable costs in the summary of expenditures submitted for reimbursement. Effect: Certain of the costs incurred and submitted for reimbursement by METRO were unallowable. Auditor’s Recommendation: METRO should establish appropriate processes and controls to guide grant personnel in the aggregation of grant costs. In particular, management should focus on the processes and controls associated with grants for which predefined projects are not established in advance of incurring grant related expenditures.
Section III – Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs Finding 2023-002: Overdrawn Federal Funding Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Costs Principles and Cash Management Type: Material Noncompliance and Material Weakness over Internal Control Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services AL Numbers and Titles: 93.809 – National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Federal Award Number: NU58DP006510 Questioned Costs: $380,644 Repeat Finding: No Criteria: NACDD requests funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the advance payment method. In accordance with 45 CFR 74.22, cash advances to a recipient organization shall be limited to the minimum amounts needed and be timed to be in accordance with the actual, immediate cash requirements of the recipient organization in carrying out the purpose of the approved program or project. The timing and amount of cash advances shall be as close as is administratively feasible to the actual disbursements by the recipient organization for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of any allowable indirect costs. According to 2 CFR §200.403 - §200.405 (Allowable Costs/Cost Principles), costs must be necessary, reasonable, and allocable to the federal award. Additionally, Section 200.303 of the Uniform Guidance indicates that the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. The Uniform Guidance also indicates that these internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (Green Book) issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework,” issued by COSO. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has clarified that the references to the Green Book and COSO were only provided as best practices and not requirements. Condition: During our testing, we identified duplicated federal award expenditures amounting to $380,644, resulting in overdrawn federal funds by $380,644. The excess cash on hand was not returned to the funding source in a timely manner. Cause: This issue occurred due to inadequate controls over the recording of expenses and the drawdown of federal funds. 28 ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL CHRONIC DISEASE PROGRAM DIRECTORS D/B/A THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHRONIC DISEASE DIRECTORS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS - Continued Section III – Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs – continued Finding 2023-002: Overdrawn Federal Funding - continued Effect: NACDD is not in compliance with federal regulations concerning allowable costs, disbursement of federal funds and excess cash. In addition, a lack of adequate controls over allowable costs and cash management could result in a reasonable possibility that NACDD would not detect errors in the normal course of performing duties and correct them in a timely manner. Recommendation: We recommend that management conduct regular reconciliations of grant expenses to identify and correct duplicate entries promptly and review cash management practices to prevent overdraws on federal funds. Views of Responsible Officials Corrective Actions: Management agrees with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.
2023-005: Written Policies and Procedures Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name: Assistance Listing Number 93.696, Certified Community Behavioral Health Clinic Expansion Grant Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 1H79SM086680-01, Program Grant Period 09/29/2022-09/29/2023 Pass-through Entity: N/A Type: Material weakness in internal control and noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding: No Criteria: As a precondition to receive federal awards, prospective recipients must have effective internal controls over the federal award. As described in 2 CFR, Part 200.303, nonfederal entities must have certain written policies and procedures surrounding the management of their federal awards. Such policies should include procedures for collecting payments of federal funds per 2 CRF 200.305, cash management (i.e., minimizing the time between draws and actual disbursing of federal awards) per 2 CFR 200.302(b)(6), allowable cost per 2 CFR 200.403, and conflict of interest per 2 CFR 200.318. Per 2 CFR 200.319(d), the non-Federal entity must have written procedures for procurement transactions. Condition: The Authority did not have written procedures for cash management and allowable cost. Identification of How Likely Questioned Costs Were Computed: N/A Known Questioned Costs: None Context: N/A Cause/Effect: Although the Authority is aware that they were required to have written policies and procedures for the items noted above, they were using the grant agreement guidelines that provide grantees with guidance for ensuring the existing accounting and personnel policies and procedures include the necessary controls. These guidelines address the compliance areas required by the Uniform Guidance. Recommendation: We recommend the Authority adopt written policies and procedures over cash management and allowable costs required under the Uniform Guidance. View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action Plan: See attached corrective action plan.
Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), 2 CFR 200.403(g) outlines the factors affecting allowability of costs charged to a federal award, specifically that costs should be adequately documented. The documentation for disbursements is to be maintained in order to provide a basis for amounts recorded in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, to demonstrate compliance with legal requirements, and to substantiate the allowability of purchases. In a test of 40 expenditures charged to the Education Stabilization Fund, nine expenditures were not adequately documented, and in some cases, no documentation was provided. Internal control procedures were not in place to ensure costs charged to the Education Stabilization Fund were adequately documented. As a result, the Barbour County Board of Education did not comply with the Uniform Guidance as it pertains to documentation of costs charged to the Education Stabilization Fund. Recommendation The Board should implement internal control procedures to ensure costs charged to the COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund are adequately documented.
Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), 2 CFR 200.403(g) outlines the factors affecting allowability of costs charged to a federal award, specifically that costs should be adequately documented. The documentation for disbursements is to be maintained in order to provide a basis for amounts recorded in the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards, to demonstrate compliance with legal requirements, and to substantiate the allowability of purchases. In a test of 40 expenditures charged to the Education Stabilization Fund, nine expenditures were not adequately documented, and in some cases, no documentation was provided. Internal control procedures were not in place to ensure costs charged to the Education Stabilization Fund were adequately documented. As a result, the Barbour County Board of Education did not comply with the Uniform Guidance as it pertains to documentation of costs charged to the Education Stabilization Fund. Recommendation The Board should implement internal control procedures to ensure costs charged to the COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund are adequately documented.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Program: Ryan White HIV/AIDS Program – Part B (ALN 93.917) Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our testing of the Ryan White Service Delivery program (grant period ending March 31, 2023), we noted that STDC initially submitted a final financial report to the Texas Department of State Health Services (DSHS) – Ryan White Division, reporting $491,993 in contractual expenditures and $69,458 in administrative expenditures. Subsequently, STDC submitted an additional reimbursement request via Form B-13, which included $162,433 in additional contractual costs and $12,153 in administrative costs. Upon review of the supporting documentation for this supplemental submission, we were unable to obtain sufficient appropriate evidence that the additional $12,153 in administrative expenditures were actually incurred. Despite the lack of adequate supporting documentation, the full amount was reimbursed by DSHS. Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403(g), to be allowable under a federal award, costs must be adequately documented. Furthermore, §200.302(b)(3) requires recipients of federal funds to maintain records that identify adequately the source and application of funds, and §200.338(a) authorizes federal agencies to disallow costs that are not properly supported or allocable. Cause: STDC did not maintain contemporaneous or sufficient documentation to support administrative costs included in the post-period reimbursement request. Additionally, internal controls over the review and approval of financial reports and supplemental claims (e.g., Form B-13 submissions) were not operating effectively to prevent or detect the inclusion of unsupported expenditures. Effect: As a result, STDC received federal reimbursement for $12,153 in administrative costs without appropriate documentation, constituting noncompliance with federal cost principles. This condition may result in the disallowance of costs and repayment obligations to the funding agency. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC strengthen internal controls related to post-award financial reporting and reimbursement procedures by: • Ensuring that all costs claimed are supported by contemporaneous documentation clearly demonstrating that costs were incurred and allocable; • Establishing a formal review protocol for post-period adjustments, including documentation validation and supervisory sign-off; • Performing reconciliations of claimed expenditures before submission of final or supplemental reports to granting agencies; and • Consulting with DSHS to determine whether corrective action or repayment is necessary regarding the unsupported amount. Questioned Costs: $12,153
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Period of Performance Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program Title: Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services ALN: 93.958 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 1B09SM087345, 6B09SM087345, 1B09SM087322-01 October 1, 2022 – September 30, 2024, October 17,2022 – October 16, 2024 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that it is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Per 2 CFR 200.403(h) cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Condition: For projects with period of performance beginning dates during the fiscal year, audit procedures included testing transactions posted to the general ledger during the first month of the award. We noted the following instances of noncompliance: For the two sampled transactions, totaling $56,997, one of the expenditures, totaling $31,254, was related to costs incurred prior to the period of performance begin date. Questioned costs: $31,254. Context: See “Condition.” Cause: Current controls are not at the correct precision level to detect costs charged outside of the period of performance. Effect: Ineffective internal controls may result in questioned costs and noncompliance with the terms of the grant. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: HHSC should enhance and/or modify existing controls to ensure that costs charged to a project have service dates within the period of performance stated in the federal award. Views of responsible officials: HHSC concurs with the finding.
Period of Performance Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program Title: Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services ALN: 93.958 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 1B09SM087345, 6B09SM087345, 1B09SM087322-01 October 1, 2022 – September 30, 2024, October 17,2022 – October 16, 2024 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that it is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Per 2 CFR 200.403(h) cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Condition: For projects with period of performance beginning dates during the fiscal year, audit procedures included testing transactions posted to the general ledger during the first month of the award. We noted the following instances of noncompliance: For the two sampled transactions, totaling $56,997, one of the expenditures, totaling $31,254, was related to costs incurred prior to the period of performance begin date. Questioned costs: $31,254. Context: See “Condition.” Cause: Current controls are not at the correct precision level to detect costs charged outside of the period of performance. Effect: Ineffective internal controls may result in questioned costs and noncompliance with the terms of the grant. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: HHSC should enhance and/or modify existing controls to ensure that costs charged to a project have service dates within the period of performance stated in the federal award. Views of responsible officials: HHSC concurs with the finding.
Period of Performance Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program Title: Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services ALN: 93.958 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 1B09SM087345, 6B09SM087345, 1B09SM087322-01 October 1, 2022 – September 30, 2024, October 17,2022 – October 16, 2024 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that it is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Per 2 CFR 200.403(h) cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Condition: For projects with period of performance beginning dates during the fiscal year, audit procedures included testing transactions posted to the general ledger during the first month of the award. We noted the following instances of noncompliance: For the two sampled transactions, totaling $56,997, one of the expenditures, totaling $31,254, was related to costs incurred prior to the period of performance begin date. Questioned costs: $31,254. Context: See “Condition.” Cause: Current controls are not at the correct precision level to detect costs charged outside of the period of performance. Effect: Ineffective internal controls may result in questioned costs and noncompliance with the terms of the grant. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: HHSC should enhance and/or modify existing controls to ensure that costs charged to a project have service dates within the period of performance stated in the federal award. Views of responsible officials: HHSC concurs with the finding.
Period of Performance Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program Title: Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services ALN: 93.958 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 1B09SM087345, 6B09SM087345, 1B09SM087322-01 October 1, 2022 – September 30, 2024, October 17,2022 – October 16, 2024 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that it is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Per 2 CFR 200.403(h) cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Condition: For projects with period of performance beginning dates during the fiscal year, audit procedures included testing transactions posted to the general ledger during the first month of the award. We noted the following instances of noncompliance: For the two sampled transactions, totaling $56,997, one of the expenditures, totaling $31,254, was related to costs incurred prior to the period of performance begin date. Questioned costs: $31,254. Context: See “Condition.” Cause: Current controls are not at the correct precision level to detect costs charged outside of the period of performance. Effect: Ineffective internal controls may result in questioned costs and noncompliance with the terms of the grant. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: HHSC should enhance and/or modify existing controls to ensure that costs charged to a project have service dates within the period of performance stated in the federal award. Views of responsible officials: HHSC concurs with the finding.
Period of Performance Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program Title: Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services ALN: 93.958 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 1B09SM087345, 6B09SM087345, 1B09SM087322-01 October 1, 2022 – September 30, 2024, October 17,2022 – October 16, 2024 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that it is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Per 2 CFR 200.403(h) cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Condition: For projects with period of performance beginning dates during the fiscal year, audit procedures included testing transactions posted to the general ledger during the first month of the award. We noted the following instances of noncompliance: For the two sampled transactions, totaling $56,997, one of the expenditures, totaling $31,254, was related to costs incurred prior to the period of performance begin date. Questioned costs: $31,254. Context: See “Condition.” Cause: Current controls are not at the correct precision level to detect costs charged outside of the period of performance. Effect: Ineffective internal controls may result in questioned costs and noncompliance with the terms of the grant. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: HHSC should enhance and/or modify existing controls to ensure that costs charged to a project have service dates within the period of performance stated in the federal award. Views of responsible officials: HHSC concurs with the finding.
Period of Performance Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program Title: Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services ALN: 93.958 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 1B09SM087345, 6B09SM087345, 1B09SM087322-01 October 1, 2022 – September 30, 2024, October 17,2022 – October 16, 2024 Statistically Valid Sample: No, and not intended to be a statistically valid sample Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance and Noncompliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that it is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in the “Internal Control Integrated Framework” issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). Per 2 CFR 200.403(h) cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Condition: For projects with period of performance beginning dates during the fiscal year, audit procedures included testing transactions posted to the general ledger during the first month of the award. We noted the following instances of noncompliance: For the two sampled transactions, totaling $56,997, one of the expenditures, totaling $31,254, was related to costs incurred prior to the period of performance begin date. Questioned costs: $31,254. Context: See “Condition.” Cause: Current controls are not at the correct precision level to detect costs charged outside of the period of performance. Effect: Ineffective internal controls may result in questioned costs and noncompliance with the terms of the grant. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: HHSC should enhance and/or modify existing controls to ensure that costs charged to a project have service dates within the period of performance stated in the federal award. Views of responsible officials: HHSC concurs with the finding.
Finding 2023-002 – Material Weakness & Material Noncompliance – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles related to Title I, Part A – Grants to Local Education Agencies, Assistance Listing Number 84.010A, Award Number 231530 and the Education Stabilization Fund, Assistance Listing Number 84.425D, Award Number 213712 Criteria: Management is responsible for complying with the specific compliance requirements set forth by the Uniform Guidance, the U.S. Department of Education, and the District’s pass-through entity Michigan Department of Education (MDE), as it relates to federally funded grants. 2 CFR 200.403 requires that costs be charged appropriately according to budget and that costs be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the grant. Condition: As a result of our audit procedures, we identified that function and object codes allocated to the Title I, Part A – Grants to Local Education Agencies were materially over the budget approved by MDE or not within the approved budget. The Education Stabilization Fund had a similar budgetary issue, however, it was not material to the grant. These grants were not overspent in total, nor would the grant expenditures tested have been considered unallowable if they had been within budget. Cause and Effect: The District’s internal control over grant compliance, along with budgetary review, were not sufficient to detect and correct errors in a timely manner. The effect was that actual costs exceeded the approved grant budget by function. Questioned Costs: Title I - The District exceeded budget by $127,769, calculated by comparing functional amounts charged to the budget by function. In addition, the District initially recorded $78,440 as a grant expenditure within the incorrect function compared to the approved budget and was subsequently reclassified to the correct function. Education Stabilization Fund - The District exceeded budget beyond the 10% allowable by function without a budget amendment by $91,851. In addition, the District initially recorded $8,761 as a grant expenditure that was not approved within the budget and was subsequently reclassified to the General Fund. Recommendation: We recommend the District expand its internal control over budgetary review of its grants, particularly in regard to reviewing MDE approved budgeted amounts to actual expenditures. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. Corrective Action Plan: See attached corrective action plan.
Finding 2023-002 – Material Weakness & Material Noncompliance – Allowable Costs/Cost Principles related to Title I, Part A – Grants to Local Education Agencies, Assistance Listing Number 84.010A, Award Number 231530 and the Education Stabilization Fund, Assistance Listing Number 84.425D, Award Number 213712 Criteria: Management is responsible for complying with the specific compliance requirements set forth by the Uniform Guidance, the U.S. Department of Education, and the District’s pass-through entity Michigan Department of Education (MDE), as it relates to federally funded grants. 2 CFR 200.403 requires that costs be charged appropriately according to budget and that costs be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the grant. Condition: As a result of our audit procedures, we identified that function and object codes allocated to the Title I, Part A – Grants to Local Education Agencies were materially over the budget approved by MDE or not within the approved budget. The Education Stabilization Fund had a similar budgetary issue, however, it was not material to the grant. These grants were not overspent in total, nor would the grant expenditures tested have been considered unallowable if they had been within budget. Cause and Effect: The District’s internal control over grant compliance, along with budgetary review, were not sufficient to detect and correct errors in a timely manner. The effect was that actual costs exceeded the approved grant budget by function. Questioned Costs: Title I - The District exceeded budget by $127,769, calculated by comparing functional amounts charged to the budget by function. In addition, the District initially recorded $78,440 as a grant expenditure within the incorrect function compared to the approved budget and was subsequently reclassified to the correct function. Education Stabilization Fund - The District exceeded budget beyond the 10% allowable by function without a budget amendment by $91,851. In addition, the District initially recorded $8,761 as a grant expenditure that was not approved within the budget and was subsequently reclassified to the General Fund. Recommendation: We recommend the District expand its internal control over budgetary review of its grants, particularly in regard to reviewing MDE approved budgeted amounts to actual expenditures. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. Corrective Action Plan: See attached corrective action plan.
Assistance Title: Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listing Number: 84.425E and 84.425F Federal Agency: Department of Education Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency and Noncompliance Category of Finding: Allowable Costs and Activities Allowed Known Questioned Costs: $864 Likely Questioned Costs: Up to $3,000 Criteria: Under 2 CFR 200.403(g), costs must be adequately documented to be allowable under Federal awards. Condition: We tested a sample of sixty expenditures charged to the Education Stabilization Fund and identified two instances of noncompliance and deficiencies in internal control. For one student who received a student award under the Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF), there was an absence of clarity regarding approved and unapproved expenditures, along with inadequate itemized receipts. Additionally, for one student who received a student award under HEERF, there was no completed application or supporting documentation to support the award. Cause: Lack of robust review process to ensure that all expenditures have detailed, appropriate supporting documentation. Effect: Unallowable costs could be incurred with Federal funds, subjecting the College to potential penalties and claw backs. Recommendation: We recommend that procedures be strengthened to ensure adequate documentation of expenses charged to Federal awards. Management’s Response: Management concurs with this finding. See Management’s Response and Corrective Action plan.
Information on Federal Program: U.S. Department of Education (Twenty-First Century Community Learning Centers, 84.287), passed through the New York State Education Department. Condition: During our testing of payroll expenditures charged to this program, it was noted that salaries were being charged that were not allowable under the grant. Criteria: Compliance under 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E §200.403 and 200.404 under compliance requirement Allowable Costs/Cost Principles. Cause: While the District had policies in place for documentation of time and effort of salaries charged to the grant, there was a misinterpretation of the allowable costs relating to salaries being charged. Effect: Costs were charged to the grant that were unallowable in the amount of $27,980. After management discussed the specific situation with the Fiscal Manager who approved the District’s grant, management received approval to move these costs to cover allowable payroll costs the District incurred, that were allowable under the grant and not reimbursed under any other federal grants. These funds were therefore not fully required to be returned. Questioned Costs: None Perspective Information/Context: As part of testing compliance, a selection of employees charged to the grants was tested for compliance with applicable direct and material compliance requirements. Of the 40 individuals selected for testing, one employee’s time charged to the grant was for hours worked during the school day. For these specific tasks, the grant only allows for reimbursement if the time worked is outside of school hours. Therefore, the time that was related to work performed during school hours was deemed unallowable due to the time the work was performed, not the tasks being performed. This is also the first year the District received this funding. Identification of Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that grant documents and regulations be reviewed regularly to ensure a clear understanding of the allowable costs, to ensure only allowable costs are charged to the grant at the time costs are incurred. District Response: The District acknowledges the finding regarding the unallowed costs associated with the 21st CCLC Grant. During the audit process, we found that salary costs within this grant were included in error and should not have been. We have contacted both the fiscal department for 21st CCLC and NYSED Grants Finance, in hopes to correct this issue. We adjusted the FS10F report for final expenses and copies are being sent out to the appropriate departments for correction. This issue should be resolved by January 2024 and will be implemented by the Business Manager, Christopher Karwiel.
2023 – 002 INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER DISBURSEMENTS Significant Deficiency U.S. DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION Federal Assistance No. 84.425U COVID-19: ARP - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Passthrough Agency: New Mexico Public Education Department Award Period: July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: During the testing there was an invoice in the amount of $299,271 that was paid of twice during June 2023. The expenditure was submitted for reimbursement from federal funds. The District was notified by the vendor of the double payment while asking to use it as credit against a separate invoice. Criteria: PART 200—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS § 200.303 Internal controls. The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. (e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non- Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also § 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Cause: The facilities department submitted the invoice to the finance department for payment at the beginning of June and towards the end of June. The accounts payable clerk bypassed the system error that the invoice number had been entered previously. Questioned costs: $299,271 was the amount of the duplicate payment. The expenditure from the duplicate payment was not reported in the schedule of expenditures in federal awards and was reported as a receivable from the vendor in the financial statements for Fund 24330. Effect or potential effect: Expenditures could be overstated, as well as revenues, if invoices are paid more than once and then also reimbursed. As a result, a receivable and unearned income must be recognized. Recommendation: Training should be given to accounts payable staff regarding the importance system warnings and the need to monitor invoices form the vendors. A tracking system should be implemented for tracking major projects to ensure than invoices are not reported more than once. Invoices should be stamped received upon receipt, marked when applied to a major project, and marked recorded once entered into the accounting system. Management’s response: Executive Director of Finance: Management agrees with this finding. The school district converted to a new financial ERP system as of July 1, 2023. The new ERP system flags any duplicate invoice numbers that maybe entered. The Accounts Payable (A/P) staff will verify if payment has already been made. On occasion, payment requests do not have an invoice number. To prevent duplicate payments, the Accounts Payable staff require original invoices and uses a system generated invoice number, or a will use a manual entry numbering convention to prevent duplicate invoice numbers. The invoice data is entered by an Accounts Payable specialist and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Manager. On occasion, A/P must request corrected invoices from vendors who try and reuse invoice numbers. The A/P Manager reviews invoice numbers during the check run for accuracy. Purchasing and A/P will also periodically review the vendor database for duplicate vendors. For construction projects that list a pay application number instead of an invoice number, A/P will implement a consistent invoice numbering convention to avoid duplicate payments. The A/P specialists will also review the PO payment history prior to processing. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Accounts Payable Manager Corrective action(s) timeline: December 1, 2023
2023 – 002 INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER DISBURSEMENTS Significant Deficiency U.S. DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION Federal Assistance No. 84.425U COVID-19: ARP - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Passthrough Agency: New Mexico Public Education Department Award Period: July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: During the testing there was an invoice in the amount of $299,271 that was paid of twice during June 2023. The expenditure was submitted for reimbursement from federal funds. The District was notified by the vendor of the double payment while asking to use it as credit against a separate invoice. Criteria: PART 200—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS § 200.303 Internal controls. The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. (e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non- Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also § 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Cause: The facilities department submitted the invoice to the finance department for payment at the beginning of June and towards the end of June. The accounts payable clerk bypassed the system error that the invoice number had been entered previously. Questioned costs: $299,271 was the amount of the duplicate payment. The expenditure from the duplicate payment was not reported in the schedule of expenditures in federal awards and was reported as a receivable from the vendor in the financial statements for Fund 24330. Effect or potential effect: Expenditures could be overstated, as well as revenues, if invoices are paid more than once and then also reimbursed. As a result, a receivable and unearned income must be recognized. Recommendation: Training should be given to accounts payable staff regarding the importance system warnings and the need to monitor invoices form the vendors. A tracking system should be implemented for tracking major projects to ensure than invoices are not reported more than once. Invoices should be stamped received upon receipt, marked when applied to a major project, and marked recorded once entered into the accounting system. Management’s response: Executive Director of Finance: Management agrees with this finding. The school district converted to a new financial ERP system as of July 1, 2023. The new ERP system flags any duplicate invoice numbers that maybe entered. The Accounts Payable (A/P) staff will verify if payment has already been made. On occasion, payment requests do not have an invoice number. To prevent duplicate payments, the Accounts Payable staff require original invoices and uses a system generated invoice number, or a will use a manual entry numbering convention to prevent duplicate invoice numbers. The invoice data is entered by an Accounts Payable specialist and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Manager. On occasion, A/P must request corrected invoices from vendors who try and reuse invoice numbers. The A/P Manager reviews invoice numbers during the check run for accuracy. Purchasing and A/P will also periodically review the vendor database for duplicate vendors. For construction projects that list a pay application number instead of an invoice number, A/P will implement a consistent invoice numbering convention to avoid duplicate payments. The A/P specialists will also review the PO payment history prior to processing. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Accounts Payable Manager Corrective action(s) timeline: December 1, 2023
2023 – 002 INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER DISBURSEMENTS Significant Deficiency U.S. DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION Federal Assistance No. 84.425U COVID-19: ARP - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Passthrough Agency: New Mexico Public Education Department Award Period: July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: During the testing there was an invoice in the amount of $299,271 that was paid of twice during June 2023. The expenditure was submitted for reimbursement from federal funds. The District was notified by the vendor of the double payment while asking to use it as credit against a separate invoice. Criteria: PART 200—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS § 200.303 Internal controls. The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. (e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non- Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also § 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Cause: The facilities department submitted the invoice to the finance department for payment at the beginning of June and towards the end of June. The accounts payable clerk bypassed the system error that the invoice number had been entered previously. Questioned costs: $299,271 was the amount of the duplicate payment. The expenditure from the duplicate payment was not reported in the schedule of expenditures in federal awards and was reported as a receivable from the vendor in the financial statements for Fund 24330. Effect or potential effect: Expenditures could be overstated, as well as revenues, if invoices are paid more than once and then also reimbursed. As a result, a receivable and unearned income must be recognized. Recommendation: Training should be given to accounts payable staff regarding the importance system warnings and the need to monitor invoices form the vendors. A tracking system should be implemented for tracking major projects to ensure than invoices are not reported more than once. Invoices should be stamped received upon receipt, marked when applied to a major project, and marked recorded once entered into the accounting system. Management’s response: Executive Director of Finance: Management agrees with this finding. The school district converted to a new financial ERP system as of July 1, 2023. The new ERP system flags any duplicate invoice numbers that maybe entered. The Accounts Payable (A/P) staff will verify if payment has already been made. On occasion, payment requests do not have an invoice number. To prevent duplicate payments, the Accounts Payable staff require original invoices and uses a system generated invoice number, or a will use a manual entry numbering convention to prevent duplicate invoice numbers. The invoice data is entered by an Accounts Payable specialist and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Manager. On occasion, A/P must request corrected invoices from vendors who try and reuse invoice numbers. The A/P Manager reviews invoice numbers during the check run for accuracy. Purchasing and A/P will also periodically review the vendor database for duplicate vendors. For construction projects that list a pay application number instead of an invoice number, A/P will implement a consistent invoice numbering convention to avoid duplicate payments. The A/P specialists will also review the PO payment history prior to processing. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Accounts Payable Manager Corrective action(s) timeline: December 1, 2023
2023 – 002 INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER DISBURSEMENTS Significant Deficiency U.S. DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION Federal Assistance No. 84.425U COVID-19: ARP - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Passthrough Agency: New Mexico Public Education Department Award Period: July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: During the testing there was an invoice in the amount of $299,271 that was paid of twice during June 2023. The expenditure was submitted for reimbursement from federal funds. The District was notified by the vendor of the double payment while asking to use it as credit against a separate invoice. Criteria: PART 200—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS § 200.303 Internal controls. The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. (e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non- Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also § 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Cause: The facilities department submitted the invoice to the finance department for payment at the beginning of June and towards the end of June. The accounts payable clerk bypassed the system error that the invoice number had been entered previously. Questioned costs: $299,271 was the amount of the duplicate payment. The expenditure from the duplicate payment was not reported in the schedule of expenditures in federal awards and was reported as a receivable from the vendor in the financial statements for Fund 24330. Effect or potential effect: Expenditures could be overstated, as well as revenues, if invoices are paid more than once and then also reimbursed. As a result, a receivable and unearned income must be recognized. Recommendation: Training should be given to accounts payable staff regarding the importance system warnings and the need to monitor invoices form the vendors. A tracking system should be implemented for tracking major projects to ensure than invoices are not reported more than once. Invoices should be stamped received upon receipt, marked when applied to a major project, and marked recorded once entered into the accounting system. Management’s response: Executive Director of Finance: Management agrees with this finding. The school district converted to a new financial ERP system as of July 1, 2023. The new ERP system flags any duplicate invoice numbers that maybe entered. The Accounts Payable (A/P) staff will verify if payment has already been made. On occasion, payment requests do not have an invoice number. To prevent duplicate payments, the Accounts Payable staff require original invoices and uses a system generated invoice number, or a will use a manual entry numbering convention to prevent duplicate invoice numbers. The invoice data is entered by an Accounts Payable specialist and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Manager. On occasion, A/P must request corrected invoices from vendors who try and reuse invoice numbers. The A/P Manager reviews invoice numbers during the check run for accuracy. Purchasing and A/P will also periodically review the vendor database for duplicate vendors. For construction projects that list a pay application number instead of an invoice number, A/P will implement a consistent invoice numbering convention to avoid duplicate payments. The A/P specialists will also review the PO payment history prior to processing. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Accounts Payable Manager Corrective action(s) timeline: December 1, 2023
2023 – 002 INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER DISBURSEMENTS Significant Deficiency U.S. DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION Federal Assistance No. 84.425U COVID-19: ARP - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Passthrough Agency: New Mexico Public Education Department Award Period: July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: During the testing there was an invoice in the amount of $299,271 that was paid of twice during June 2023. The expenditure was submitted for reimbursement from federal funds. The District was notified by the vendor of the double payment while asking to use it as credit against a separate invoice. Criteria: PART 200—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS § 200.303 Internal controls. The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. (e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non- Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also § 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Cause: The facilities department submitted the invoice to the finance department for payment at the beginning of June and towards the end of June. The accounts payable clerk bypassed the system error that the invoice number had been entered previously. Questioned costs: $299,271 was the amount of the duplicate payment. The expenditure from the duplicate payment was not reported in the schedule of expenditures in federal awards and was reported as a receivable from the vendor in the financial statements for Fund 24330. Effect or potential effect: Expenditures could be overstated, as well as revenues, if invoices are paid more than once and then also reimbursed. As a result, a receivable and unearned income must be recognized. Recommendation: Training should be given to accounts payable staff regarding the importance system warnings and the need to monitor invoices form the vendors. A tracking system should be implemented for tracking major projects to ensure than invoices are not reported more than once. Invoices should be stamped received upon receipt, marked when applied to a major project, and marked recorded once entered into the accounting system. Management’s response: Executive Director of Finance: Management agrees with this finding. The school district converted to a new financial ERP system as of July 1, 2023. The new ERP system flags any duplicate invoice numbers that maybe entered. The Accounts Payable (A/P) staff will verify if payment has already been made. On occasion, payment requests do not have an invoice number. To prevent duplicate payments, the Accounts Payable staff require original invoices and uses a system generated invoice number, or a will use a manual entry numbering convention to prevent duplicate invoice numbers. The invoice data is entered by an Accounts Payable specialist and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Manager. On occasion, A/P must request corrected invoices from vendors who try and reuse invoice numbers. The A/P Manager reviews invoice numbers during the check run for accuracy. Purchasing and A/P will also periodically review the vendor database for duplicate vendors. For construction projects that list a pay application number instead of an invoice number, A/P will implement a consistent invoice numbering convention to avoid duplicate payments. The A/P specialists will also review the PO payment history prior to processing. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Accounts Payable Manager Corrective action(s) timeline: December 1, 2023
2023 – 002 INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER DISBURSEMENTS Significant Deficiency U.S. DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION Federal Assistance No. 84.425U COVID-19: ARP - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Passthrough Agency: New Mexico Public Education Department Award Period: July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: During the testing there was an invoice in the amount of $299,271 that was paid of twice during June 2023. The expenditure was submitted for reimbursement from federal funds. The District was notified by the vendor of the double payment while asking to use it as credit against a separate invoice. Criteria: PART 200—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS § 200.303 Internal controls. The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. (e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non- Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also § 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Cause: The facilities department submitted the invoice to the finance department for payment at the beginning of June and towards the end of June. The accounts payable clerk bypassed the system error that the invoice number had been entered previously. Questioned costs: $299,271 was the amount of the duplicate payment. The expenditure from the duplicate payment was not reported in the schedule of expenditures in federal awards and was reported as a receivable from the vendor in the financial statements for Fund 24330. Effect or potential effect: Expenditures could be overstated, as well as revenues, if invoices are paid more than once and then also reimbursed. As a result, a receivable and unearned income must be recognized. Recommendation: Training should be given to accounts payable staff regarding the importance system warnings and the need to monitor invoices form the vendors. A tracking system should be implemented for tracking major projects to ensure than invoices are not reported more than once. Invoices should be stamped received upon receipt, marked when applied to a major project, and marked recorded once entered into the accounting system. Management’s response: Executive Director of Finance: Management agrees with this finding. The school district converted to a new financial ERP system as of July 1, 2023. The new ERP system flags any duplicate invoice numbers that maybe entered. The Accounts Payable (A/P) staff will verify if payment has already been made. On occasion, payment requests do not have an invoice number. To prevent duplicate payments, the Accounts Payable staff require original invoices and uses a system generated invoice number, or a will use a manual entry numbering convention to prevent duplicate invoice numbers. The invoice data is entered by an Accounts Payable specialist and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Manager. On occasion, A/P must request corrected invoices from vendors who try and reuse invoice numbers. The A/P Manager reviews invoice numbers during the check run for accuracy. Purchasing and A/P will also periodically review the vendor database for duplicate vendors. For construction projects that list a pay application number instead of an invoice number, A/P will implement a consistent invoice numbering convention to avoid duplicate payments. The A/P specialists will also review the PO payment history prior to processing. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Accounts Payable Manager Corrective action(s) timeline: December 1, 2023
2023 – 002 INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER DISBURSEMENTS Significant Deficiency U.S. DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION Federal Assistance No. 84.425U COVID-19: ARP - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Passthrough Agency: New Mexico Public Education Department Award Period: July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: During the testing there was an invoice in the amount of $299,271 that was paid of twice during June 2023. The expenditure was submitted for reimbursement from federal funds. The District was notified by the vendor of the double payment while asking to use it as credit against a separate invoice. Criteria: PART 200—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS § 200.303 Internal controls. The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. (e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non- Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also § 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Cause: The facilities department submitted the invoice to the finance department for payment at the beginning of June and towards the end of June. The accounts payable clerk bypassed the system error that the invoice number had been entered previously. Questioned costs: $299,271 was the amount of the duplicate payment. The expenditure from the duplicate payment was not reported in the schedule of expenditures in federal awards and was reported as a receivable from the vendor in the financial statements for Fund 24330. Effect or potential effect: Expenditures could be overstated, as well as revenues, if invoices are paid more than once and then also reimbursed. As a result, a receivable and unearned income must be recognized. Recommendation: Training should be given to accounts payable staff regarding the importance system warnings and the need to monitor invoices form the vendors. A tracking system should be implemented for tracking major projects to ensure than invoices are not reported more than once. Invoices should be stamped received upon receipt, marked when applied to a major project, and marked recorded once entered into the accounting system. Management’s response: Executive Director of Finance: Management agrees with this finding. The school district converted to a new financial ERP system as of July 1, 2023. The new ERP system flags any duplicate invoice numbers that maybe entered. The Accounts Payable (A/P) staff will verify if payment has already been made. On occasion, payment requests do not have an invoice number. To prevent duplicate payments, the Accounts Payable staff require original invoices and uses a system generated invoice number, or a will use a manual entry numbering convention to prevent duplicate invoice numbers. The invoice data is entered by an Accounts Payable specialist and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Manager. On occasion, A/P must request corrected invoices from vendors who try and reuse invoice numbers. The A/P Manager reviews invoice numbers during the check run for accuracy. Purchasing and A/P will also periodically review the vendor database for duplicate vendors. For construction projects that list a pay application number instead of an invoice number, A/P will implement a consistent invoice numbering convention to avoid duplicate payments. The A/P specialists will also review the PO payment history prior to processing. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Accounts Payable Manager Corrective action(s) timeline: December 1, 2023
2023 – 002 INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER DISBURSEMENTS Significant Deficiency U.S. DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION Federal Assistance No. 84.425U COVID-19: ARP - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Passthrough Agency: New Mexico Public Education Department Award Period: July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: During the testing there was an invoice in the amount of $299,271 that was paid of twice during June 2023. The expenditure was submitted for reimbursement from federal funds. The District was notified by the vendor of the double payment while asking to use it as credit against a separate invoice. Criteria: PART 200—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS § 200.303 Internal controls. The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. (e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non- Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also § 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Cause: The facilities department submitted the invoice to the finance department for payment at the beginning of June and towards the end of June. The accounts payable clerk bypassed the system error that the invoice number had been entered previously. Questioned costs: $299,271 was the amount of the duplicate payment. The expenditure from the duplicate payment was not reported in the schedule of expenditures in federal awards and was reported as a receivable from the vendor in the financial statements for Fund 24330. Effect or potential effect: Expenditures could be overstated, as well as revenues, if invoices are paid more than once and then also reimbursed. As a result, a receivable and unearned income must be recognized. Recommendation: Training should be given to accounts payable staff regarding the importance system warnings and the need to monitor invoices form the vendors. A tracking system should be implemented for tracking major projects to ensure than invoices are not reported more than once. Invoices should be stamped received upon receipt, marked when applied to a major project, and marked recorded once entered into the accounting system. Management’s response: Executive Director of Finance: Management agrees with this finding. The school district converted to a new financial ERP system as of July 1, 2023. The new ERP system flags any duplicate invoice numbers that maybe entered. The Accounts Payable (A/P) staff will verify if payment has already been made. On occasion, payment requests do not have an invoice number. To prevent duplicate payments, the Accounts Payable staff require original invoices and uses a system generated invoice number, or a will use a manual entry numbering convention to prevent duplicate invoice numbers. The invoice data is entered by an Accounts Payable specialist and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Manager. On occasion, A/P must request corrected invoices from vendors who try and reuse invoice numbers. The A/P Manager reviews invoice numbers during the check run for accuracy. Purchasing and A/P will also periodically review the vendor database for duplicate vendors. For construction projects that list a pay application number instead of an invoice number, A/P will implement a consistent invoice numbering convention to avoid duplicate payments. The A/P specialists will also review the PO payment history prior to processing. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Accounts Payable Manager Corrective action(s) timeline: December 1, 2023
8. Criteria or specific requirement (including statutory, regulatory, or other citation): The compliance requirements for B. Allowability of Costs pursuant to § 200.403 state that “costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity… (g) Be adequately documented…”. Further, LEA personnel must also provide program-specific assurances related to the ESSER program when completing the grant application. These assurances are reflected in the Uniform Guidance, § 200.415 – Required Certifications, and include provisions that require LEAs “to assure that expenditures are proper and in accordance with the terms and conditions of the Federal award and approved project budgets…”. 9. Condition: A sample of 118 payroll-related expenditures were randomly selected for testing using a random sampling approach, of which included a total of 37 district employees paid & claimed under this grant. These payroll-related expenditures were reviewed to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. Upon completing this testing, we noted the following discrepancies: -There were 4 employee salary & benefits claimed that were not included in the 22-4998-E3 grant budget detail. The budget specified teachers & paraprofessionals, and support staff were not included, resulting in known questioned costs of $4,857.50. -There were 11 employees where a portion of the claimed payroll & benefits were deemed allowable per the budget but $8,947.88 was deemed not allowable, resulting in known questioned costs of $8,947.88. -Additionally, there were $6,686.25 of the employee salary & benefits that was not deemed allowable per the budget as the pay period dates did not align with “loss of learning” related pay dates or other approved activities. 10. Questioned Costs: $20,492 of known questioned costs (based on testing 30.49% of population). $67,209 of projected questioned costs (estimate based on 100% of population). 11. Context: Upon testing a sample of $200,352.23 of payroll-related expenditures, known questioned costs of $20,491.63 were identified. Using the total salary & benefits claimed at 6/30/23 population of $722,722, we project the likely questioned costs to be approximately $67,209.45. 12. Effect: The District’s was not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to accurately develop and amend budget information throughout the application process and verify compliance with applicable policies and regulations prior to the expenditure of federal program funds may expose the District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as ISBE may require the District to return funds associated with unapproved and unallowable expenditures. 13. Cause: The District did not establish appropriate internal control procedures, such as a review by appropriate personnel to ensure compliance with the approved ESSER 22-4998-E3 Budget prior to the expenditure of federal funds. Additionally, the existence of multiple ESSER programs and lack of understanding of the related grant application led to the District’s failure to establish appropriate internal control procedures to ensure the expenditure was properly claimed per the approved itemized budget that funded the expenditure. 14. Recommendation: The District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that potential expenditures are approved are deemed to be allowable before spending federal funds. In addition, management should develop and implement a monitoring process to ensure that control procedures are being followed. 15. Management's response: The District has agreed with the findings and recommendations as presented. See Corrective Action Plan provided by the District.
Finding 2023-002: Questioned Cost – Material Weakness Criteria: A non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance and any costs incurred before the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity made the federal award that were authorized by the federal awarding agency or pass-through entity (2 CFR sections 200.308 200.309 and 200.403(h)). Also, costs should not be included as a cost of any other federally financed programs in either the current or prior period. Costs charged to federal grants should be reviewed by an individual familiar with the Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations contained in 2 CFR, Section 200 as part of the SEFA review process. Condition: Costs for US Department of Transportation, Mobility Management Grant 20.507 Section 5307 included a $30,000 charge for use of the Data Management System (DMS). The charge is based on a contract rate charged to outside entities that varies depending on the number of users. Management stated the charge was to recoup costs for use of the DMS. Costs for the DMS consist of historical costs to get the system functioning, along with current personnel costs to operate the system and provide the contracted training. The historical costs occurred outside the period of performance and are thus unallowable. Personnel costs are already being charged to the grant through the allocated payroll and benefits of trainers and other personnel, and thus should not also be charged through the contract rate. In addition, if the contract rate includes a profit component this would also be unallowable to charge to the grant. We also noted the same $30,000 charge was included in US Department of Transportation, Enhanced Mobility of Seniors and Individuals with Disabilities, Section 5310. Cause: Paratransit’s internal controls over the determination of allowable costs were not operating effectively. Effect: The DMS costs were removed and replaced with an allowable 10% de minimus overhead charge. Recommendation: We recommend that costs charged to federal grants be reviewed by an individual familiar with the Cost Principles for Nonprofit Organizations contained in 2 CFR, Section 200 as part of the SEFA review process. Management’s Response: See corrective action plan.
Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) Assistance Listing Numbers – 97.036 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance Federal regulations per 2 CFR section 200.403 requires among other things, the specific criteria be met, costs are adequately documented and be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. Universe/Population: The total population was all employees using equipment for the purpose of aid to the general public during the Presidentially Declared Emergency period. Based on these requirements, the population consisted of 435 individuals, 1,863 days, and a total dollar amount of $593,233. Condition: 40 individuals spanning a total of 393 days with a total dollar amount of $117,899 were selected for testing. We noted for two individuals, on 3 separate days, charges were more for equipment hours than the employees were physically at work. The Louisiana State Police (LSP), in its oversite capacity had reviewed 100% of the charges and found overages, including the two individuals noted in our sampled test, for a total overage of $2,913 out of the total population amount of $593,233. Cause: During a period of shifting positions and job responsibilities, the Sheriff did not check and review the employees and charges requested for reimbursement under the grant award, with a sufficient level of detail. Effect: Without accurate review of the costs being submitted for reimbursement, the Sherrif could request for reimbursement costs that are unallowable. There is no questioned cost noted due to the reimbursements being adjusted after LSP’s review. Recommendation: The Sheriff should review all costs before being submitted for reimbursement to ensure appropriate allowability and accuracy of the requests. View of Responsible Official: Management agrees with this finding and will implement a more detailed review process of FEMA grant reimbursement requests for future disasters to ensure equipment hour costs reported are accurate.
Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) Assistance Listing Numbers – 97.036 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance Federal regulations per 2 CFR section 200.403 requires among other things, the specific criteria be met, costs are adequately documented and be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. Universe/Population: The total population was all employees using equipment for the purpose of aid to the general public during the Presidentially Declared Emergency period. Based on these requirements, the population consisted of 435 individuals, 1,863 days, and a total dollar amount of $593,233. Condition: 40 individuals spanning a total of 393 days with a total dollar amount of $117,899 were selected for testing. We noted for two individuals, on 3 separate days, charges were more for equipment hours than the employees were physically at work. The Louisiana State Police (LSP), in its oversite capacity had reviewed 100% of the charges and found overages, including the two individuals noted in our sampled test, for a total overage of $2,913 out of the total population amount of $593,233. Cause: During a period of shifting positions and job responsibilities, the Sheriff did not check and review the employees and charges requested for reimbursement under the grant award, with a sufficient level of detail. Effect: Without accurate review of the costs being submitted for reimbursement, the Sherrif could request for reimbursement costs that are unallowable. There is no questioned cost noted due to the reimbursements being adjusted after LSP’s review. Recommendation: The Sheriff should review all costs before being submitted for reimbursement to ensure appropriate allowability and accuracy of the requests. View of Responsible Official: Management agrees with this finding and will implement a more detailed review process of FEMA grant reimbursement requests for future disasters to ensure equipment hour costs reported are accurate.
Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) Assistance Listing Numbers – 97.036 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance Federal regulations per 2 CFR section 200.403 requires among other things, the specific criteria be met, costs are adequately documented and be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. Universe/Population: The total population was all employees using equipment for the purpose of aid to the general public during the Presidentially Declared Emergency period. Based on these requirements, the population consisted of 435 individuals, 1,863 days, and a total dollar amount of $593,233. Condition: 40 individuals spanning a total of 393 days with a total dollar amount of $117,899 were selected for testing. We noted for two individuals, on 3 separate days, charges were more for equipment hours than the employees were physically at work. The Louisiana State Police (LSP), in its oversite capacity had reviewed 100% of the charges and found overages, including the two individuals noted in our sampled test, for a total overage of $2,913 out of the total population amount of $593,233. Cause: During a period of shifting positions and job responsibilities, the Sheriff did not check and review the employees and charges requested for reimbursement under the grant award, with a sufficient level of detail. Effect: Without accurate review of the costs being submitted for reimbursement, the Sherrif could request for reimbursement costs that are unallowable. There is no questioned cost noted due to the reimbursements being adjusted after LSP’s review. Recommendation: The Sheriff should review all costs before being submitted for reimbursement to ensure appropriate allowability and accuracy of the requests. View of Responsible Official: Management agrees with this finding and will implement a more detailed review process of FEMA grant reimbursement requests for future disasters to ensure equipment hour costs reported are accurate.
Disaster Grants – Public Assistance (Presidentially Declared Disasters) Assistance Listing Numbers – 97.036 Criteria: The Uniform Guidance Federal regulations per 2 CFR section 200.403 requires among other things, the specific criteria be met, costs are adequately documented and be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. Universe/Population: The total population was all employees using equipment for the purpose of aid to the general public during the Presidentially Declared Emergency period. Based on these requirements, the population consisted of 435 individuals, 1,863 days, and a total dollar amount of $593,233. Condition: 40 individuals spanning a total of 393 days with a total dollar amount of $117,899 were selected for testing. We noted for two individuals, on 3 separate days, charges were more for equipment hours than the employees were physically at work. The Louisiana State Police (LSP), in its oversite capacity had reviewed 100% of the charges and found overages, including the two individuals noted in our sampled test, for a total overage of $2,913 out of the total population amount of $593,233. Cause: During a period of shifting positions and job responsibilities, the Sheriff did not check and review the employees and charges requested for reimbursement under the grant award, with a sufficient level of detail. Effect: Without accurate review of the costs being submitted for reimbursement, the Sherrif could request for reimbursement costs that are unallowable. There is no questioned cost noted due to the reimbursements being adjusted after LSP’s review. Recommendation: The Sheriff should review all costs before being submitted for reimbursement to ensure appropriate allowability and accuracy of the requests. View of Responsible Official: Management agrees with this finding and will implement a more detailed review process of FEMA grant reimbursement requests for future disasters to ensure equipment hour costs reported are accurate.
2 C.F.R. § 3474.1 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Education for 2 C.F.R. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. Section 2003 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) (Pub. L. 117-2) (award or grant) by the U.S. Department of Education (Department) are governed by section 2003 of the ARP and section 314 of the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA) (Pub. L. 116-260) and the following terms and conditions of this Certification and Agreement (C&A): Use of Grant Funds: 1. Section 2003(7) of the ARP requires Recipient, an institution of higher education as defined in section 101 or 102(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), 20 USC § 1001 or 1002(c), to provide emergency financial aid grants to students in an amount equivalent to the sum of two amounts: 50 percent of the portion of its allocation that is based on formula factors from CRRSAA section 314(a)(1)(A)-(D) and 100 percent of the portion of its allocation that is based on formula factors from CRRSAA section 314(a)(1)(E)-(F). The amount of funds made available by this award under Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.425E represents the minimum amount that Recipient must use for making emergency financial aid grants to students. 2. Under section 2003(7) of the ARP and section 314(c)(3) of the CRRSAA, Recipient must make emergency financial aid grants to students (which may include students exclusively enrolled in distance education), which may be used for any component of the student’s cost of attendance or for emergency costs that arise due to coronavirus, such as tuition, food, housing, health care (including mental health care), or child care. The Center failed to spend $12,517 of its ARP #84.425E funds on grants to students, funds were spent on administrative expenditures. In addition, interest submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services owed from the prior audit period was paid from HEERF funds in the amount of $328 and Adult Education fund in the amount of $396, however since the interest earned was all credited to the General fund, the repayment to the Department of Health and Human Services should have been made from the General fund. Failure to expend funds as required under the grant agreement could lead to future questioned costs, reduced future federal funding, and the requirement to repay the Department of Health and Human Services. The Treasurer and Superintendent should ensure expenditures paid by federal grant funds are within the constraints of the grant agreement.
2 C.F.R. § 3474.1 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Education for 2 C.F.R. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. Section 2003 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) (Pub. L. 117-2) (award or grant) by the U.S. Department of Education (Department) are governed by section 2003 of the ARP and section 314 of the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA) (Pub. L. 116-260) and the following terms and conditions of this Certification and Agreement (C&A): Use of Grant Funds: 1. Section 2003(7) of the ARP requires Recipient, an institution of higher education as defined in section 101 or 102(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), 20 USC § 1001 or 1002(c), to provide emergency financial aid grants to students in an amount equivalent to the sum of two amounts: 50 percent of the portion of its allocation that is based on formula factors from CRRSAA section 314(a)(1)(A)-(D) and 100 percent of the portion of its allocation that is based on formula factors from CRRSAA section 314(a)(1)(E)-(F). The amount of funds made available by this award under Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.425E represents the minimum amount that Recipient must use for making emergency financial aid grants to students. 2. Under section 2003(7) of the ARP and section 314(c)(3) of the CRRSAA, Recipient must make emergency financial aid grants to students (which may include students exclusively enrolled in distance education), which may be used for any component of the student’s cost of attendance or for emergency costs that arise due to coronavirus, such as tuition, food, housing, health care (including mental health care), or child care. The Center failed to spend $12,517 of its ARP #84.425E funds on grants to students, funds were spent on administrative expenditures. In addition, interest submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services owed from the prior audit period was paid from HEERF funds in the amount of $328 and Adult Education fund in the amount of $396, however since the interest earned was all credited to the General fund, the repayment to the Department of Health and Human Services should have been made from the General fund. Failure to expend funds as required under the grant agreement could lead to future questioned costs, reduced future federal funding, and the requirement to repay the Department of Health and Human Services. The Treasurer and Superintendent should ensure expenditures paid by federal grant funds are within the constraints of the grant agreement.
2 C.F.R. § 3474.1 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Education for 2 C.F.R. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. Section 2003 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) (Pub. L. 117-2) (award or grant) by the U.S. Department of Education (Department) are governed by section 2003 of the ARP and section 314 of the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA) (Pub. L. 116-260) and the following terms and conditions of this Certification and Agreement (C&A): Use of Grant Funds: 1. Section 2003(7) of the ARP requires Recipient, an institution of higher education as defined in section 101 or 102(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), 20 USC § 1001 or 1002(c), to provide emergency financial aid grants to students in an amount equivalent to the sum of two amounts: 50 percent of the portion of its allocation that is based on formula factors from CRRSAA section 314(a)(1)(A)-(D) and 100 percent of the portion of its allocation that is based on formula factors from CRRSAA section 314(a)(1)(E)-(F). The amount of funds made available by this award under Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.425E represents the minimum amount that Recipient must use for making emergency financial aid grants to students. 2. Under section 2003(7) of the ARP and section 314(c)(3) of the CRRSAA, Recipient must make emergency financial aid grants to students (which may include students exclusively enrolled in distance education), which may be used for any component of the student’s cost of attendance or for emergency costs that arise due to coronavirus, such as tuition, food, housing, health care (including mental health care), or child care. The Center failed to spend $12,517 of its ARP #84.425E funds on grants to students, funds were spent on administrative expenditures. In addition, interest submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services owed from the prior audit period was paid from HEERF funds in the amount of $328 and Adult Education fund in the amount of $396, however since the interest earned was all credited to the General fund, the repayment to the Department of Health and Human Services should have been made from the General fund. Failure to expend funds as required under the grant agreement could lead to future questioned costs, reduced future federal funding, and the requirement to repay the Department of Health and Human Services. The Treasurer and Superintendent should ensure expenditures paid by federal grant funds are within the constraints of the grant agreement.
2 C.F.R. § 3474.1 gives regulatory effect to the Department of Education for 2 C.F.R. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. Section 2003 of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (ARP) (Pub. L. 117-2) (award or grant) by the U.S. Department of Education (Department) are governed by section 2003 of the ARP and section 314 of the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act, 2021 (CRRSAA) (Pub. L. 116-260) and the following terms and conditions of this Certification and Agreement (C&A): Use of Grant Funds: 1. Section 2003(7) of the ARP requires Recipient, an institution of higher education as defined in section 101 or 102(c) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), 20 USC § 1001 or 1002(c), to provide emergency financial aid grants to students in an amount equivalent to the sum of two amounts: 50 percent of the portion of its allocation that is based on formula factors from CRRSAA section 314(a)(1)(A)-(D) and 100 percent of the portion of its allocation that is based on formula factors from CRRSAA section 314(a)(1)(E)-(F). The amount of funds made available by this award under Assistance Listing Number (ALN) 84.425E represents the minimum amount that Recipient must use for making emergency financial aid grants to students. 2. Under section 2003(7) of the ARP and section 314(c)(3) of the CRRSAA, Recipient must make emergency financial aid grants to students (which may include students exclusively enrolled in distance education), which may be used for any component of the student’s cost of attendance or for emergency costs that arise due to coronavirus, such as tuition, food, housing, health care (including mental health care), or child care. The Center failed to spend $12,517 of its ARP #84.425E funds on grants to students, funds were spent on administrative expenditures. In addition, interest submitted to the Department of Health and Human Services owed from the prior audit period was paid from HEERF funds in the amount of $328 and Adult Education fund in the amount of $396, however since the interest earned was all credited to the General fund, the repayment to the Department of Health and Human Services should have been made from the General fund. Failure to expend funds as required under the grant agreement could lead to future questioned costs, reduced future federal funding, and the requirement to repay the Department of Health and Human Services. The Treasurer and Superintendent should ensure expenditures paid by federal grant funds are within the constraints of the grant agreement.
Criteria: The Uniform Guidance administrative requirements and cost principles apply to federal funding awarded on or after December 26, 2014. 2 CFR 200, Subpart E – Cost Principles Section 200.403(a) states that costs must be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award and be allocable thereto under cost principles. Condition: The City requested and received reimbursement from Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) in the amount of $68,728, of which $36,438 (or 884 hours) related to force equipment and $32,290 (or 1,061 overtime manhours) related to force labor. Out of a population of 884 force equipment hours, or $36,438, 350 hours were tested. Of the tested amount, 298 hours, or $12,236, lacked equipment hours logs. Out of a population of 1,061 overtime manhours, or $32,290, spread across 27 employees, we tested 388 overtime manhours, or $9,648, spread across 5 employees. Of the tested amount, there were discrepancies in rates charged for the employees, as well as hour classification between overtime and straight time. Additionally, the time sheet for one employee was for a different period than the period in which reimbursement was requested. This accounted for 96 of the tested hours. When analyzing differences in costs requested, of the total $9,648 tested it was found that $1,782, or 18.5%, was over requested. When projected to the population, it results in a request that is approximately $6,000 too high. Cause: The City does not have policies and procedures in place to ensure compliance with federal cost requirements regarding the allowability of reimbursed costs. Questioned Costs: $18,201 Effect: The City may be in noncompliance with the Uniform Guidance Allowable Costs standards. Recommendation: The City should implement policies and procedures that ensure an effective review of reimbursement requests prior to submission to ensure all costs requested are legitimate and allowable. Identification of a repeat finding: This is a new finding in the current year. View of Responsible Official: Management concurs with the finding.
Campus management is responsible for establishing and maintaining internal controls over disbursements that are adequate to ensure that all financial activities are properly processed and reported. Additionally, the Campus is required, except where otherwise authorized by statute, to ensure costs meet the general criteria outlined in 2 CFR 200.403 in order to be allowable under federal awards, including the costs be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. The Single Audit Reporting Package must have a report date nine months after fiscal year-end.