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.
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.
Criteria 2 CFR Sections 200.403 and 200.412–415 require non-federal entities to utilize consistent and equitable methods for allocating indirect costs to federal programs. Condition The Organization was unable to provide adequate support to substantiate its allocation of indirect costs to federal award programs. Cause The Organization does not have formal policies and procedures over procurement which requires the retention of evidence of quotes and bids. Effect Without a formal policy, there is an increased risk of inconsistent or noncompliant cost allocation practices, which may lead to questioned costs, audit findings, or disallowed reimbursements by federal awarding agencies. Questioned Costs None Context The Organization does not have procedures in place to allocate indirect costs to contracts. Auditor allocated costs based on allowed percentages as part of testing. Recommendation We recommend that management develop and implement a comprehensive indirect cost allocation policy that aligns with Uniform Guidance requirements. The policy should clearly define the methodology for calculating, allocating, and applying indirect costs to federal awards and be communicated to all relevant personnel. Views of Responsible Officials See the accompanying Corrective Action Plan.
Criteria 2 CFR Section 200.403 and Section 200.430 requires all costs charged to federal awards by nonfederal entities to be allowable, allocable, and adequately documented. Specifically, payroll costs must reflect actual time worked and be supported by appropriate review and approval processes. Condition The Organization was unable to provide documentary evidence that costs were charged to federal awards in compliance with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance. We identified multiple instances in which expenditures were charged to federal award programs for costs that were not allowable or documentation provided by the Organization lacked documentary evidence of review by appropriate individuals. Cause The supporting documentation for charging costs to federal awards provided by the Organization was not consistently reviewed on a timely basis by supervisory personnel. Effect Key controls over the Organization’s compliance with allowable cost requirements for federal award programs were not functioning as designed. Questioned Costs $12,814 Context There were six instances in which the Organization’s payroll hours charged to federal awards exceeded the 80-hour limit per individual per pay period and were not detected by employees. In addition, there were four instances in which the Organization was unable to provide any documentary evidence of review by supervisory personnel. The extrapolation of unallowable costs identified during sample testing to the related population resulted in projected likely questioned costs of $256,199 from a total population of approximately $10.1 million of related costs. Recommendation The Organization should adhere to its policies and procedures regarding supervisory review of documentation to support the allowability of costs charged to federal awards. Furthermore, we recommend that the personnel reviewing support for allowable costs initial or sign off on such support to provide evidence of their actions. In addition, the Organization should review, and possibly revise, its policies and procedures for preventing or detecting and correcting unallowable costs charged to federal awards to ensure consistent application of those policies and procedures to all costs charged to federal awards. Views of Responsible Officials See the accompanying Corrective Action Plan.
Finding 2023-005Period of Performance Significant Deficiency in Internal Controls over Compliance and Compliance Identification of the federal program(s): Assistance Listings program titles and numbers: 14.228 Community Block Development Grant (CBDG-CV) Federal award identification number: 14.228: Ohio Department of Development (B-D-22-1AE-4) Name of the federal agencies: 14.228 Department of Housing and Urban Development Name of the applicable pass-through entities: 14.228: Ohio Department of Development Criteria or specific requirement (including statutory, regulatory, or other citation): The 2 CFR 200.403 of the Uniform Guidance requires that costs must be incurred during the approved period of performance to be allowable under a federal award. Expenses incurred outside this period are not compliant with federal regulations and the terms of the award. Condition: During our audit, we noted six transactions with charges not within the fiscal year 2023. Cause: This error is due to the mishandling by previous personnel. Effect or potential effect: The absence of proper period of performance controls increases the risk of unallowable costs being charged to the federal award, which could result in potential disallowance of these expenses by federal award agencies. Questioned costs: $2,687 Context: SAOP’s policies and procedures do not require monitoring of the proper period of performance. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: Not applicable Recommendation: We recommend that SAOP establish more robust internal controls to guarantee that all non-payroll charges are incurred within the authorized period of performance. This should involve consistent monitoring of grant periods, providing staff training on the period of performance requirements, and conducting periodic reviews of expenditure documentation. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding and recommendation.
AAIHB distributed gift cards to both salaried employees and independent contractors as a gesture of appreciation for working extended hours related to COVID-19 contact tracing efforts. The total value of the gift cards was approximately $4,125 and was charged to the COVID-19: Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity grant (AL #93.231). For contractors, these gift cards were provided in addition to their regular compensation. The gift card disbursements were not processed through payroll nor formalized in contract terms, and there is no documentation indicating the entity obtained approval from the awarding agency. In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.403, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and conform to limitations set forth in federal regulations. Per 2 CFR § 200.421(e)(3), the cost of gifts—including cash or cash equivalents such as gift cards—is generally unallowable. Compensation for employees must comply with 2 CFR § 200.430, including support through written policies and documentation of time and effort. Contractor payments must align with procurement standards in 2 CFR § 200.318–200.324 and be governed by written contracts. The use of federal funds to provide gift cards constitutes an unallowable cost under Uniform Guidance. The questioned amount may be subject to repayment to the awarding agency or passthrough entity. The auditee sought to recognize the extraordinary efforts of personnel during the COVID-19 public health response. However, they were unaware that the use of gift cards for this purpose was inconsistent with Uniform Guidance and lacked prior approval or supporting policy. We recommend the auditee discontinue the use of federal funds for gift card distributions. All compensation for employees should be processed through payroll, supported by appropriate documentation and internal policies. Payments to contractors should be governed by written contracts and comply with applicable procurement standards. If the auditee believes these costs are justifiable, they should consult the awarding agency for a determination and, if necessary, reimburse the federal award.
Finding Number: 2023-019 Prior Year Finding Number: 2022-020 Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Payroll Activities Program: U.S. Department of Agriculture Government Department/Agency: Department of Human Services (DHS) Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program Cluster (SNAP) ALN: 10.551, 10.561 Award #: Various Award Period: 10/01/21 - 09/30/22 10/01/22 – 09/30/23 Criteria – The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal Controls, requires the non-federal entities receiving Federal awards (1.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonable ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and other terms and conditions of the Federal Award. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal control that should include controls over its activities allowed or unallowed, allowable cost/cost principal process. CFR 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowed under federal awards, they must be adequately documented. Additionally, salaries and wages charged to Federal awards are subject to the standards of documentation as described by 2 CFR Section 200.430(i) and must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: - Be incorporated into the organization’s official records. - Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated across all grant-related and non-grant related activities (100%); and - Support the distribution of employee salary across multiple activities or cost objectives. Condition – During our testing of allowable costs for payroll expenditures incurred throughout the year, we sampled and selected 60 of 1,798 payroll disbursements and noted the following: - 34 instances in which DHS did not consistently apply the funding allocation. The hours that should have been split 50/50 between federal and local were charged 100% to the program. - 5 instances in which the hours recorded on the employees’ timesheets did not agree with the hours recorded per the payroll register. - 1 instance in which the employee timesheet was not provided for the pay cycle tested. - 1 instance in which the employee timesheet was not approved by personnel authorized to do so. - 4 instances in which COVID-19 telework hours were not split 50/50 as required by the employees’ funding allocation and charged 100% to the program. Further, we noted that internal controls identified did not appear to be operating at a level of precision to ensure compliance with the above-mentioned requirements. Questioned Costs – Not Determinable. Context – This is a condition identified per review of DHS’ compliance with the specified requirements using a statistically valid sample. The total payroll expenditures charged to the program in fiscal year 2023 were $3,942,422. The amount sampled is $168,409. The known amount of inconsistencies noted is $53,501. Effect – An ineffective control system related to review of transactions to ensure that only allowable costs are allocated to federal programs can lead to noncompliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the provisions of grant agreements that could ultimately lead to disallowed costs for the major programs. Cause – DHS does not appear to have adequate policies and procedures to ensure compliance with applicable cost principles and ensure that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging costs to a federal program. Recommendation – We recommend that DHS reevaluate and improve internal controls to ensure adherence to federal regulations related to the fiscal administrative requirement for expending and accounting for payroll and to ensure proper and accurate funding allocation of payroll cost. Views of Responsible Officials – The Government concurs with the auditor’s findings and recommendations. The Department of Human Services (DHS) adopted the electronic Timeforce (STATS) system for payroll, replacing manual processes. Time and attendance are approved through management levels, with payroll based on Notice of Personnel Action (NOPA) cost centers. Financial Analysts reconcile payroll, and a workflow ensures accurate NOPA listings for payroll purposes. The planned corrective actions are presented in the Government’s Corrective Action Plan attached as Appendix B to the Single Audit Report.
Finding Number: 2023-022 Prior Year Finding Number: 2022-023 Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Payroll Activities Program: U.S. Department of Agriculture Government Department/Agency: Department of Education (VIDE) Child Nutrition Cluster ALN: 10.555, 10.559, 10.582 Award #: 1VI300308, 4VI300308, 4VI308908 Award Period: 10/01/2021 – 09/30/2022 10/01/2022 – 09/30/2023 10/01/2022 – 09/30/2024 Criteria – The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal Controls, requires the nonfederal entities receiving Federal awards (1.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonable ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and other terms and conditions of the Federal Award. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal control that should include controls over its activities allowed or unallowed, allowable cost/cost principal process. CFR 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowed under federal awards, they must be adequately documented. Additionally, salaries and wages charged to Federal awards are subject to the standards of documentation as described by 2 CFR Section 200.430(i) and must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: - Be incorporated into the organization’s official records. - Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated across all grantrelated and non-grant related activities (100%); and - Support the distribution of employee salary across multiple activities or cost objectives. Condition – During our testing of allowable costs for payroll expenditures incurred throughout the year, we sampled and selected 20 of 196 payroll disbursements and noted the following: - 11 instances where the approved timesheet for the pay period selected was not available for review. - 20 instances where VIDE did not provide support that time and effort is charged in accordance with A-87 requirements. - 4 instances where the NOPA provided did not include any evidence that the employee was approved to be federally reimbursed for the project code utilized in the payroll register. - 4 instances where the employee’s pay rate in the approved NOPA provided did not agree with the pay rate in the payroll register. As a result, it does not appear that the controls in place are operating at a level of precision to ensure compliance with the compliance requirement. Questioned Costs – $10,789. Context – This is a condition identified per review of VIDE’s compliance with the specified requirements using a statistically valid sample. The total payroll expenditures charged to the program in fiscal year 2023 was $196,740. The amount sampled is $21,572. The known amount of the instances of inconsistent funding allocation is $10,789. Effect – An ineffective control system related to review of transactions to ensure that only allowable costs are allocated to federal programs can lead to noncompliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the provisions of grant agreements that could ultimately lead to disallowed costs for the major programs. Cause – VIDE does not appear to have adequate policies and procedures to ensure compliance with applicable cost principles and ensure that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging costs to a federal program. Recommendation – We recommend that VIDE reevaluate and improve internal controls to ensure adherence to federal regulations related to the fiscal administrative requirement for expending and accounting for payroll and to ensure proper and accurate funding allocation of payroll cost. Views of Responsible Officials – The Government concurs with the auditor’s findings and recommendations. VIDE will develop and institute stricter fiscal controls to address the root causes of documentation and allocation discrepancies for this program. To prevent discrepancies including unapproved project codes and pay rate mismatches between NOPAs and payroll registers, the Fiscal Team will take the lead in preparing and maintaining the official staffing list for federally funded personnel within this program, an effort that involves reviewing the grant application for all positions and informing HR of required action entries. The planned corrective actions are presented in the Government’s Corrective Action Plan attached as Appendix B to the Single Audit Report.
Finding Number: 2023-029 Prior Year Finding Number: 2022-026 Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Payroll Activities Program: U.S. Department of Defense Government Department/Agency: Office of the Adjutant General (OTAG) National Guard Military Operations and Maintenance (O&M) Projects ALN: 12.401 Award #: W9127P-23-2-1001, W9127P-22-2-1001 Award Period: 10/01/2021 – 09/30/2022 10/01/2022 – 09/30/2023 Criteria – CFR 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowed under federal awards, they must be adequately documented. Additionally, salaries and wages charged to Federal awards are subject to the standards of documentation as described by 2 CFR Section 200.430(i) and must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: - Be incorporated into the organization’s official records. - Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated across all grant-related and non-grant related activities (100%); and - Support the distribution of employee salary across multiple activities or cost objectives. The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal Controls, requires that non-federal entities receiving Federal awards (i.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition – We sampled and selected 60 out of 652 payroll transactions and noted the following: - 1 instance where health insurance costs continued to be charged to the program after the employee retired, with no related time and effort. - 1 instance where the employee pay rate did not agree to the pay rate listed on their NOPA form. - 7 instances where the timesheet for the pay period selected was not provided. Further, it does not appear that the controls in place are operating at a level of precision to ensure compliance with the allowable costs/cost principles compliance requirements. Questioned Costs – Not determinable. Context – This is a condition identified per review of OTAG’s compliance with the specified requirements using a statistically valid sample. The total amount of payroll expenditures charged to the program during fiscal year 2023 were $1,810,965 and the total amount of our sample was $188,082. The known amount of the exceptions amounted to $26,694. Effect – OTAG is not in compliance with the stated provisions. Failure to properly review and support expenditures can result in noncompliance with laws and regulations along with loss of funding. Cause – OTAG does not appear to have adequate policies and procedures in place to ensure compliance with applicable cost principles stipulations. Recommendation – We recommend that OTAG improve internal controls to ensure adherence to Federal regulations related to the fiscal and administrative requirements for expending and accounting for payroll expenditures. Views of Responsible Officials – The Government concurs with the auditor’s findings and recommendations. OTAG implemented enhanced payroll controls including a dual manual and electronic timesheet system, verification of pay rates against NOPA forms, and separation controls to discontinue benefit charges upon employee separation or retirement. The planned corrective actions are presented in the Government’s Corrective Action Plan attached as Appendix B to the Single Audit Report.
Finding Number: 2023-033 Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Payroll Activities Program: U.S. Department of the Interior Government Department/Agency: Department of Planning and Natural Resources Fish and Wildlife Cluster ALN: 15.605, 15.611 Award #: Various Award Period: Various Criteria – The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal Controls, requires the non-federal entities receiving Federal awards (1.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonable ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and other terms and conditions of the Federal Award. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal control that should include controls over its activities allowed or unallowed, allowable cost/cost principal process. CFR 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowed under federal awards, they must be adequately documented. Additionally, salaries and wages charged to Federal awards are subject to the standards of documentation as described by 2 CFR Section 200.430(i) and must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: - Be incorporated into the organization’s official records. - Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated across all grant-related and non-grant related activities (100%); and - Support the distribution of employee salary across multiple activities or cost objectives. Condition – During our testing of allowable costs for payroll expenditures incurred throughout the year, we sampled and selected 60 of 620 payroll disbursements and noted the following: - 8 instances where the approved timesheet for the pay period selected were not available for review. - 10 instances where an employees assigned project code documented on the Notice of Personnel Action was not a project code associated with the grant. Additionally, the payroll register reflected a different project code for these transactions. - 1 instance with a variance between the hours reported on the payroll register and the hours reported on the Detail Check History. As a result, it does not appear that the controls in place are operating at a level of precision to ensure compliance with the compliance requirement. Questioned Costs – $38,914. Context – This is a condition identified per review of the Government’s compliance with the specified requirements using a statistically valid sample. The total payroll expenditures charged to the program in fiscal year 2023 was $1,572,926. The amount sampled is $165,134. The value of transactions with exceptions totaled $38,914. Effect – An ineffective control system related to review of transactions to ensure that only allowable costs are allocated to federal programs can lead to noncompliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the provisions of grant agreements that could ultimately lead to disallowed costs for the major programs. Cause – The Government does not appear to have adequate policies and procedures to ensure compliance with applicable cost principles and ensure that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging costs to a federal program. Recommendation – We recommend that the Government reevaluate and improve internal controls to ensure adherence to federal regulations related to the fiscal administrative requirement for expending and accounting for payroll and to ensure proper and accurate funding allocation of payroll cost. Views of Responsible Officials – The Government concurs with the auditor’s findings and recommendations. We recognize that these findings highlight areas where improvements are necessary to ensure better compliance with applicable policies and regulations governing payroll and grant management. We are committed to implementing corrective actions and enhancing the internal controls to prevent recurrence. The planned corrective actions are presented in the Government’s Corrective Action Plan attached as Appendix B to the Single Audit Report.
Finding Number: 2023-049 Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Payroll Activities Program: U.S. Department of Education Government Department/Agency: Department of Education (VIDE) Special Education Cluster ALN: 84.027A, 84.027X Award #: Various Award Period: Various Criteria – The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal Controls, requires the non-federal entities receiving Federal awards (i.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonable ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and other terms and conditions of the Federal Award. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal control that should include controls over its activities allowed or unallowed, allowable cost/cost principal process. CFR 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowed under federal awards, they must be adequately documented. Additionally, salaries and wages charged to Federal awards are subject to the standards of documentation as described by 2 CFR Section 200.430(i) and must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: - Be incorporated into the organization’s official records. - Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated across all grant-related and non-grant related activities (100%); and - Support the distribution of employee salary across multiple activities or cost objectives. Furthermore, CFR 200.113 requires that an applicant, recipient, or subrecipient of a Federal award must promptly disclose, in writing, whenever it has credible evidence of the commission of a violation of Federal criminal law involving fraud, conflict of interest, bribery, or gratuity violations found in Title 18 of the United States Code, or a violation of the civil False Claims Act, in connection with the Federal award (including any activities or subawards thereunder). The disclosure must be made to the Federal agency, the agency’s Office of Inspector General, and the pass-through entity (if applicable). Condition – During our testing of allowable costs for payroll expenditures incurred throughout the year, we sampled and selected 40 of 2,573 payroll disbursements and noted 2 instances where the employee’s pay rate in the approved Notice of Personnel Action provided did not agree with the pay rate in the payroll register. Additionally, a fraud incident related to falsified payroll timesheet entries charged to this program was discovered and investigated during the year. It was discovered that bus driver timesheets were being approved with falsified time entries. An analysis conducted by VIDE determined the amount of theft to be $5,221. This incident was not disclosed or reported to the Federal awarding agency as required. As a result, it does not appear that the controls in place are operating at a level of precision to ensure compliance with the compliance requirement. Questioned Costs – $5,221. Context – This is a condition identified per review of VIDE’s compliance with the specified requirements using a statistically valid sample. The total payroll expenditures charged to the program in fiscal year 2023 was $5,744,863. The amount sampled is $102,945. Effect – An ineffective control system related to review of transactions to ensure that only allowable costs are allocated to federal programs can lead to noncompliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the provisions of grant agreements that could ultimately lead to disallowed costs for the major programs. Cause – VIDE does not appear to have adequate policies and procedures to ensure compliance with applicable cost principles and ensure that an appropriate level of review was completed prior to charging costs to a federal program. Recommendation – We recommend that VIDE reevaluate and improve internal controls to ensure adherence to federal regulations related to the fiscal administrative requirement for expending and accounting for payroll transactions. Additionally, fraud incident should be reported to the appropriate federal awarding agency in accordance with mandatory disclosure requirements. Views of Responsible Officials – The Government concurs with the auditor’s findings and recommendations. VIDE is taking immediate action to align payroll controls with our established fiscal improvement plan and to institutionalize a mandatory federal reporting protocol for fraud. The planned corrective actions are presented in the Government’s Corrective Action Plan attached as Appendix B to the Single Audit Report.
Finding Number 2023-052 Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Payroll Activities Program: U.S. Department of Education Government Department/Agency: Department of Education (VIDE) Consolidated Grant to the Outlying Areas ALN: 84.403A Award #: Various Award Period: Various Criteria – The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal Controls, requires the non-federal entities receiving Federal awards (1.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonable ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and other terms and conditions of the Federal Award. Management is responsible for establishing and maintaining a system of internal control that should include controls over its activities allowed or unallowed, allowable cost/cost principal process. CFR 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowed under federal awards, they must be adequately documented. Additionally, salaries and wages charged to Federal awards are subject to the standards of documentation as described by 2 CFR Section 200.430(i) and must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: - Be incorporated into the organization’s official records. - Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated across all grant-related and non-grant related activities (100%); and - Support the distribution of employee salary across multiple activities or cost objectives. Condition – During our testing of allowable costs for payroll expenditures incurred throughout the year, we sampled and selected 40 of 4,518 payroll disbursements and noted the following: - 18 instances where the approved timesheet for the pay period selected were not available for review. - 2 instances where the per diem support were not readily identifiable. - 1 instance where the employee’s pay rate in the approved NOPA provided did not agree with the pay rate in the payroll register. As a result, it does not appear that the controls in place are operating at a level of precision to ensure compliance with the compliance requirement. Questioned Costs – Not determinable. Context – This is a condition identified per review of VIDE’s compliance with the specified requirements using a statistically valid sample. The total payroll expenditures charged to the program in fiscal year 2023 was $7,738,716. The amount sampled is $95,985. Effect – An ineffective control system related to review of transactions to ensure that only allowable costs are allocated to federal programs can lead to noncompliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the provisions of grant agreements that could ultimately lead to disallowed costs for the major programs. Cause – VIDE does not appear to have adequate policies and procedures to ensure compliance with applicable cost principles and ensure that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging costs to a federal program. Recommendation – We recommend that VIDE reevaluate and improve internal controls to ensure adherence to federal regulations related to the fiscal administrative requirement for expending and accounting for payroll and to ensure proper and accurate funding allocation of payroll cost. Views of Responsible Officials – The Government concurs with the auditor’s findings and recommendations. VIDE is taking immediate action to align payroll controls with the established fiscal improvement plan. The planned corrective actions are presented in the Government’s Corrective Action Plan attached as Appendix B to the Single Audit Report.
Finding Number: 2023-063 Prior Year Finding Number: N/A Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Payroll Activities Program: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Government Department/Agency: Department of Human Services (DHS) Head Start Cluster ALN: 93.356, 93.600 Award #: Various Award Period: Various Criteria – The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal Controls, requires that non-federal entities receiving Federal awards (i.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal control designed to ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. CFR 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowed under federal awards, they must be adequately documented. Additionally, salaries and wages charged to Federal awards are subject to the standards of documentation as described by 2 CFR Section 200.430(i) and must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: - Be incorporated into the organization’s official records. - Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated across all grant-related and non-grant related activities (100%); and - Support the distribution of employee salary across multiple activities or cost objectives. Condition – During our testing of allowable costs for payroll expenditures incurred throughout the year, we sampled and selected 60 of 2,941 payroll disbursements and noted 1 instance where fringe benefits were incorrectly charged to the program. We found the employer share of fringe benefits charged to the program with no associated time and effort by the employee. The employee retired and the fringe benefit continued to be charged to the program subsequent to retirement. Further, we noted that internal controls identified did not appear to be operating at a level of precision to ensure compliance with the above-mentioned requirements. Questioned Costs - $4,688. Context – This is a condition identified per review of DHS’ compliance with the specified requirements using a statistically valid sample. The total payroll expenditures charged to the program in fiscal year 2023 were $7,037,992. The amount sampled is $150,246. The known amount of instances of noncompliance is $4,688, which represents the fringe benefits charged to the program for the entire fiscal year with no associated time and effort by the employee. Effect – An ineffective control system related to review of transactions to ensure that only allowable costs are allocated to federal programs can lead to noncompliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the provisions of grant agreements that could ultimately lead to disallowed costs for the major programs. Cause – DHS does not appear to have adequate policies and procedures to ensure compliance with applicable cost principles and ensure that an appropriate level of review and approval was completed prior to charging costs to a federal program. Recommendation – We recommend that DHS reevaluate and improve internal controls to ensure adherence to federal regulations related to the fiscal administrative requirement for expending and accounting for payroll and to ensure proper and accurate funding allocation of payroll cost. Views of Responsible Officials - The Government concurs with the auditor’s findings and recommendations. DHS has incorporated into its internal controls a step to ensure that the accounts, in retrospect, are reconciled to the actual Flex earning report. DHS intends on meeting with the Department of Finance to identify the nuances that create postings to occur contrary to the Flex Earning Report account coding. The planned corrective actions are presented in the Government’s Corrective Action Plan attached as Appendix B to the Single Audit Report.
Finding Number: 2023-074 Prior Year Finding Number: 2022-071 Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Program: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Government Department/Agency: Department of Human Services (DHS) Social Services Block Grant ALN: 93.667 Award #: Various Award Period: Various Criteria – CFR 200.403(g) states that for costs to be allowed under federal awards, they must be adequately documented. Additionally, salaries and wages charged to Federal awards are subject to the standards of documentation as described by 2 CFR Section 200.430(i) and must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: - Be incorporated into the organization’s official records. - Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated across all grant-related and non-grant related activities (100%); and - Support the distribution of employee salary across multiple activities or cost objectives. Further, the Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal Controls, requires the non-federal entities receiving Federal awards (i.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonable ensure compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and other terms and conditions of the Federal Award. Condition – We sampled and selected 60 of 1,380 payroll transactions and noted the following: - 2 instances in which the project code on an employee’s Notice of Personnel Action (NOPA), which is used to record time and effort to the appropriate grant, was expired and had not been updated. During the fiscal year, program personnel did make adjustments to ensure the employee’s time and effort was recorded to the correct grant. - 1 instance in which the hours noted per the employee’s timesheet did not agree to the hours in the payroll register. We also sampled 60 of 251 non-payroll transactions and noted the following: - 18 expenditures that do not seem to conform to DHS requirements for disbursing program funds. - 6 instances where the approved requisition was not available for review. - 1 instance where the invoice date is prior to the date of the Purchase Order. - 1 instance where no supporting documentation was available for review other than the approved requisition. Questioned Costs – Not determinable. Context – This is a condition identified per review of compliance with the specified requirements using a statistically valid sample. Total amount of payroll expenditures charged to the program in fiscal year 2023 were $3,343,590. Total amount sampled is $180,273. The known amount of the exceptions is $408. Total amount of non-payroll expenditures charged to the program in fiscal year 2023 were $2,551,775. Total amount sampled is $1,004,88. The known amount of the exception is $388,742. Effect - Failure to properly review and support expenditures can result in noncompliance with laws and regulations along with loss of funding. Cause – DHS does not appear to have adequate policies and procedures in place to ensure compliance with applicable cost principles and maintenance of underlying documentation. Recommendation – We recommend that DHS improve internal controls to ensure adherence to federal regulations related to the fiscal and administrative requirements for expending and accounting for payroll and non-payroll expenditures. Views of Responsible Officials - The Government concurs with the auditor’s findings and recommendations. The Department of Human Services (DHS) adopted the electronic Timeforce (STATS) system for payroll, replacing manual processes. Time and attendance are approved through management levels, with payroll based on Notice of Personnel Action (NOPA) cost centers. Financial Analysts reconcile payroll, and a workflow ensures accurate NOPA listings for payroll purposes. The planned corrective actions are presented in the Government’s Corrective Action Plan attached as Appendix B to the Single Audit Report.
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