Activities Allowed and Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Indirect Costs Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Federal Program Title: Employment Service Cluster ALN: 17.207, 17.801 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 23555DV000036 – 01, 24555DV000076 – 01 October 1, 2022 – December 31, 2024, October 1, 2023 – December 31, 2025 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 section 200.303(a), Texas Veterans Commission (TVC) must: 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). Per 2 CFR section 200.403, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria 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 recipient or subrecipient. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. (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 requirements of any other federally – financed program in either the current or a prior period. (g) Be adequately documented. Condition: Audit procedures included a sample of five indirect cost expenditures, totaling $1,248,175, incurred during the fiscal year to verify that the rates used were in accordance with the terms and conditions of the award and the amounts claimed were applied to the appropriate base. During our testing, we noted one sample in which an incorrect rate was applied to the base, resulting in $69,481 of unallowed indirect costs. In addition, there was no evidence of review and approval for three of the five expenditures selected for testing, including the expenditure noted in the preceding paragraph. Questioned costs: $69,481 Context: See “Condition.” Cause: Management failed to retain documentation that would support the review and approval of the indirect cost amounts. The exceptions were caused due to high turnover within the agency. Employees who were responsible for the approvals are no longer employed through TVC. Effect: Lack of formal documentation of reviews may result in questioned costs. In addition, failure to maintain adequate documentation pertinent to a federal award may result in noncompliance with grant terms and conditions. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend TVC enforce establish document retention processes to ensure it has access to documentation for review in the event of management turnover. In addition, we recommend TVC strengthen its controls over the review of the indirect cost calculations to ensure accuracy of costs being calculated. Views of responsible officials: TVC agrees to the recommendation of improved record retention in the event of management turnover. TVC also agrees to the recommendation of strengthening its internal controls over the review of VES’s grant costs associated with the indirect revenues being calculated.
Finding 2024-005: Reportable finding considered a significant deficiency - Inadequate Controls over Identification of Unallowable Costs in the Indirect Cost Pool Program name: Applies to all federal program utilizing indirect cost rates Assistance Listing: All Federal awarding agency: All Pass-through Entity: All Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.403 and 2 CFR 200.412–415, costs charged to federal awards, whether direct or indirect, must be allowable under the cost principles of Subpart E. Organizations must have adequate internal controls to identify, segregate, and exclude unallowable costs from charges to federal programs. In particular, indirect cost pools used to calculate rates billed to federal awards must not include unallowable costs such as fundraising, entertainment, or other expressly unallowable expenses. Condition: During our audit procedures, we noted that the Organization does not identify or code unallowable costs (e.g., fundraising event expenses) within its accounting system at the time of transaction entry. As part of our review of the General and Administrative (G&A) cost pool used for indirect cost rate calculations, we identified unallowable costs included in the detailed listing. Per discussion with management, these costs are not intended to be charged to federal awards. Management explained that federal drawdowns are based on a provisional rate and unallowable costs are manually excluded during the closing and cost submission process. Cause: The Organization lacks system-based controls and procedures to flag or segregate unallowable costs during transaction coding. The current process relies heavily on manual review and adjustments at year-end, which increases the risk of unallowable costs being inadvertently included in rates charged to federal programs. Effect: Including unallowable costs in the indirect cost pool—whether or not ultimately billed—represents a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Although management asserts that such costs are removed prior to federal reimbursement claims, the absence of preventive controls increases the risk of noncompliance, incorrect cost submissions, and potential disallowed costs during future oversight or audits. Repeat finding: This is not a repeat finding. Questioned costs: None identified as costs were reportedly removed prior to billing; however, the issue represents a control weakness. Perspective: This control deficiency affects the Organization’s system-wide treatment of indirect costs across all federal programs using the provisional rate. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization: • Implement accounting system enhancements or protocols to flag unallowable costs at the point of entry to ensure proper coding and segregation. • Establish written procedures and staff training to reinforce cost allowability standards under Uniform Guidance. • Consider performing interim reviews of indirect cost pool activity to ensure early identification and removal of unallowable expenses. Management’s response and corrective action plan (unaudited): See corrective action plan.
Finding 2024-005: Reportable finding considered a significant deficiency - Inadequate Controls over Identification of Unallowable Costs in the Indirect Cost Pool Program name: Applies to all federal program utilizing indirect cost rates Assistance Listing: All Federal awarding agency: All Pass-through Entity: All Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.403 and 2 CFR 200.412–415, costs charged to federal awards, whether direct or indirect, must be allowable under the cost principles of Subpart E. Organizations must have adequate internal controls to identify, segregate, and exclude unallowable costs from charges to federal programs. In particular, indirect cost pools used to calculate rates billed to federal awards must not include unallowable costs such as fundraising, entertainment, or other expressly unallowable expenses. Condition: During our audit procedures, we noted that the Organization does not identify or code unallowable costs (e.g., fundraising event expenses) within its accounting system at the time of transaction entry. As part of our review of the General and Administrative (G&A) cost pool used for indirect cost rate calculations, we identified unallowable costs included in the detailed listing. Per discussion with management, these costs are not intended to be charged to federal awards. Management explained that federal drawdowns are based on a provisional rate and unallowable costs are manually excluded during the closing and cost submission process. Cause: The Organization lacks system-based controls and procedures to flag or segregate unallowable costs during transaction coding. The current process relies heavily on manual review and adjustments at year-end, which increases the risk of unallowable costs being inadvertently included in rates charged to federal programs. Effect: Including unallowable costs in the indirect cost pool—whether or not ultimately billed—represents a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Although management asserts that such costs are removed prior to federal reimbursement claims, the absence of preventive controls increases the risk of noncompliance, incorrect cost submissions, and potential disallowed costs during future oversight or audits. Repeat finding: This is not a repeat finding. Questioned costs: None identified as costs were reportedly removed prior to billing; however, the issue represents a control weakness. Perspective: This control deficiency affects the Organization’s system-wide treatment of indirect costs across all federal programs using the provisional rate. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization: • Implement accounting system enhancements or protocols to flag unallowable costs at the point of entry to ensure proper coding and segregation. • Establish written procedures and staff training to reinforce cost allowability standards under Uniform Guidance. • Consider performing interim reviews of indirect cost pool activity to ensure early identification and removal of unallowable expenses. Management’s response and corrective action plan (unaudited): See corrective action plan.
Finding 2024-005: Reportable finding considered a significant deficiency - Inadequate Controls over Identification of Unallowable Costs in the Indirect Cost Pool Program name: Applies to all federal program utilizing indirect cost rates Assistance Listing: All Federal awarding agency: All Pass-through Entity: All Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.403 and 2 CFR 200.412–415, costs charged to federal awards, whether direct or indirect, must be allowable under the cost principles of Subpart E. Organizations must have adequate internal controls to identify, segregate, and exclude unallowable costs from charges to federal programs. In particular, indirect cost pools used to calculate rates billed to federal awards must not include unallowable costs such as fundraising, entertainment, or other expressly unallowable expenses. Condition: During our audit procedures, we noted that the Organization does not identify or code unallowable costs (e.g., fundraising event expenses) within its accounting system at the time of transaction entry. As part of our review of the General and Administrative (G&A) cost pool used for indirect cost rate calculations, we identified unallowable costs included in the detailed listing. Per discussion with management, these costs are not intended to be charged to federal awards. Management explained that federal drawdowns are based on a provisional rate and unallowable costs are manually excluded during the closing and cost submission process. Cause: The Organization lacks system-based controls and procedures to flag or segregate unallowable costs during transaction coding. The current process relies heavily on manual review and adjustments at year-end, which increases the risk of unallowable costs being inadvertently included in rates charged to federal programs. Effect: Including unallowable costs in the indirect cost pool—whether or not ultimately billed—represents a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Although management asserts that such costs are removed prior to federal reimbursement claims, the absence of preventive controls increases the risk of noncompliance, incorrect cost submissions, and potential disallowed costs during future oversight or audits. Repeat finding: This is not a repeat finding. Questioned costs: None identified as costs were reportedly removed prior to billing; however, the issue represents a control weakness. Perspective: This control deficiency affects the Organization’s system-wide treatment of indirect costs across all federal programs using the provisional rate. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization: • Implement accounting system enhancements or protocols to flag unallowable costs at the point of entry to ensure proper coding and segregation. • Establish written procedures and staff training to reinforce cost allowability standards under Uniform Guidance. • Consider performing interim reviews of indirect cost pool activity to ensure early identification and removal of unallowable expenses. Management’s response and corrective action plan (unaudited): See corrective action plan.
Finding 2024-005: Reportable finding considered a significant deficiency - Inadequate Controls over Identification of Unallowable Costs in the Indirect Cost Pool Program name: Applies to all federal program utilizing indirect cost rates Assistance Listing: All Federal awarding agency: All Pass-through Entity: All Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.403 and 2 CFR 200.412–415, costs charged to federal awards, whether direct or indirect, must be allowable under the cost principles of Subpart E. Organizations must have adequate internal controls to identify, segregate, and exclude unallowable costs from charges to federal programs. In particular, indirect cost pools used to calculate rates billed to federal awards must not include unallowable costs such as fundraising, entertainment, or other expressly unallowable expenses. Condition: During our audit procedures, we noted that the Organization does not identify or code unallowable costs (e.g., fundraising event expenses) within its accounting system at the time of transaction entry. As part of our review of the General and Administrative (G&A) cost pool used for indirect cost rate calculations, we identified unallowable costs included in the detailed listing. Per discussion with management, these costs are not intended to be charged to federal awards. Management explained that federal drawdowns are based on a provisional rate and unallowable costs are manually excluded during the closing and cost submission process. Cause: The Organization lacks system-based controls and procedures to flag or segregate unallowable costs during transaction coding. The current process relies heavily on manual review and adjustments at year-end, which increases the risk of unallowable costs being inadvertently included in rates charged to federal programs. Effect: Including unallowable costs in the indirect cost pool—whether or not ultimately billed—represents a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Although management asserts that such costs are removed prior to federal reimbursement claims, the absence of preventive controls increases the risk of noncompliance, incorrect cost submissions, and potential disallowed costs during future oversight or audits. Repeat finding: This is not a repeat finding. Questioned costs: None identified as costs were reportedly removed prior to billing; however, the issue represents a control weakness. Perspective: This control deficiency affects the Organization’s system-wide treatment of indirect costs across all federal programs using the provisional rate. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization: • Implement accounting system enhancements or protocols to flag unallowable costs at the point of entry to ensure proper coding and segregation. • Establish written procedures and staff training to reinforce cost allowability standards under Uniform Guidance. • Consider performing interim reviews of indirect cost pool activity to ensure early identification and removal of unallowable expenses. Management’s response and corrective action plan (unaudited): See corrective action plan.
Finding 2024-005: Reportable finding considered a significant deficiency - Inadequate Controls over Identification of Unallowable Costs in the Indirect Cost Pool Program name: Applies to all federal program utilizing indirect cost rates Assistance Listing: All Federal awarding agency: All Pass-through Entity: All Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.403 and 2 CFR 200.412–415, costs charged to federal awards, whether direct or indirect, must be allowable under the cost principles of Subpart E. Organizations must have adequate internal controls to identify, segregate, and exclude unallowable costs from charges to federal programs. In particular, indirect cost pools used to calculate rates billed to federal awards must not include unallowable costs such as fundraising, entertainment, or other expressly unallowable expenses. Condition: During our audit procedures, we noted that the Organization does not identify or code unallowable costs (e.g., fundraising event expenses) within its accounting system at the time of transaction entry. As part of our review of the General and Administrative (G&A) cost pool used for indirect cost rate calculations, we identified unallowable costs included in the detailed listing. Per discussion with management, these costs are not intended to be charged to federal awards. Management explained that federal drawdowns are based on a provisional rate and unallowable costs are manually excluded during the closing and cost submission process. Cause: The Organization lacks system-based controls and procedures to flag or segregate unallowable costs during transaction coding. The current process relies heavily on manual review and adjustments at year-end, which increases the risk of unallowable costs being inadvertently included in rates charged to federal programs. Effect: Including unallowable costs in the indirect cost pool—whether or not ultimately billed—represents a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Although management asserts that such costs are removed prior to federal reimbursement claims, the absence of preventive controls increases the risk of noncompliance, incorrect cost submissions, and potential disallowed costs during future oversight or audits. Repeat finding: This is not a repeat finding. Questioned costs: None identified as costs were reportedly removed prior to billing; however, the issue represents a control weakness. Perspective: This control deficiency affects the Organization’s system-wide treatment of indirect costs across all federal programs using the provisional rate. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization: • Implement accounting system enhancements or protocols to flag unallowable costs at the point of entry to ensure proper coding and segregation. • Establish written procedures and staff training to reinforce cost allowability standards under Uniform Guidance. • Consider performing interim reviews of indirect cost pool activity to ensure early identification and removal of unallowable expenses. Management’s response and corrective action plan (unaudited): See corrective action plan.
Period of Performance Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Federal Program Title: Social Services Block Grant Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services ALN: 93.667 93.958 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: Social Services Block Grant 2401TXSOSR October 1, 2023 – September 30, 2025 Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services 1B09SM085994, 6B09SM085994 October 1, 2021 – September 30, 2023 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), Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) 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 awards 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. For awards with period of performance end dates during the fiscal year, audit procedures included testing transactions posted to the general ledger during the last month and after the period of performance end date. We noted the following instances of noncompliance: Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) – Audit procedures included testing 40 sampled transactions from projects with period of performance beginning dates during the fiscal year totaling $5,034. Two of the expenditures, totaling $486, were related to costs incurred prior to the period of performance begin date. The Project Period Start Date per the grant award was October 1, 2023, however costs were incurred on September 6, 2023 and September 11, 2023. Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services (MHBG) – Audit procedures included testing 40 sampled transactions, totaling $1,695,512, from projects with period of performance end dates during the fiscal year for which the obligation had not been paid as of the end of the period of performance. Twelve of the expenditures, totaling $312,929, were not paid within 120 days of the period of performance end date, which is the allowed time period to liquidate obligations. The required liquidation date was December 29, 2023; however, these obligations were paid between January 2, 2024 and April 11, 2024. Questioned costs: Social Services Block Grant: $486 Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services: $312,929 Context: See “Condition.” Cause: The two exceptions for SSBG were related to travel costs where the employee’s supervisor approved the transaction, which was coded to the incorrect grant. For the exceptions noted in the liquidation period testing for MHBG, the late payments are due to the HHSC’s reconciliation and closeout process not being performed in a timely manner. Effect: Ineffective internal controls may result in questioned costs and noncompliance with the terms of the grant. In addition, costs paid with non-federal sources remain in the population which is being included on the schedule of federal expenditures (SEFA) for the current fiscal year. Repeat Finding: 2023-016 Recommendation: HHSC should provide additional training over its review process to ensure that reviewers are verifying that transactions are posted to the proper grant. Additionally, HHSC should verify that all obligations incurred are liquidated during the closeout process and adjustments are not made subsequent to closeout. 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: Social Services Block Grant Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services ALN: 93.667 93.958 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: Social Services Block Grant 2401TXSOSR October 1, 2023 – September 30, 2025 Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services 1B09SM085994, 6B09SM085994 October 1, 2021 – September 30, 2023 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), Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) 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 awards 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. For awards with period of performance end dates during the fiscal year, audit procedures included testing transactions posted to the general ledger during the last month and after the period of performance end date. We noted the following instances of noncompliance: Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) – Audit procedures included testing 40 sampled transactions from projects with period of performance beginning dates during the fiscal year totaling $5,034. Two of the expenditures, totaling $486, were related to costs incurred prior to the period of performance begin date. The Project Period Start Date per the grant award was October 1, 2023, however costs were incurred on September 6, 2023 and September 11, 2023. Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services (MHBG) – Audit procedures included testing 40 sampled transactions, totaling $1,695,512, from projects with period of performance end dates during the fiscal year for which the obligation had not been paid as of the end of the period of performance. Twelve of the expenditures, totaling $312,929, were not paid within 120 days of the period of performance end date, which is the allowed time period to liquidate obligations. The required liquidation date was December 29, 2023; however, these obligations were paid between January 2, 2024 and April 11, 2024. Questioned costs: Social Services Block Grant: $486 Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services: $312,929 Context: See “Condition.” Cause: The two exceptions for SSBG were related to travel costs where the employee’s supervisor approved the transaction, which was coded to the incorrect grant. For the exceptions noted in the liquidation period testing for MHBG, the late payments are due to the HHSC’s reconciliation and closeout process not being performed in a timely manner. Effect: Ineffective internal controls may result in questioned costs and noncompliance with the terms of the grant. In addition, costs paid with non-federal sources remain in the population which is being included on the schedule of federal expenditures (SEFA) for the current fiscal year. Repeat Finding: 2023-016 Recommendation: HHSC should provide additional training over its review process to ensure that reviewers are verifying that transactions are posted to the proper grant. Additionally, HHSC should verify that all obligations incurred are liquidated during the closeout process and adjustments are not made subsequent to closeout. 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: Social Services Block Grant Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services ALN: 93.667 93.958 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: Social Services Block Grant 2401TXSOSR October 1, 2023 – September 30, 2025 Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services 1B09SM085994, 6B09SM085994 October 1, 2021 – September 30, 2023 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), Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) 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 awards 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. For awards with period of performance end dates during the fiscal year, audit procedures included testing transactions posted to the general ledger during the last month and after the period of performance end date. We noted the following instances of noncompliance: Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) – Audit procedures included testing 40 sampled transactions from projects with period of performance beginning dates during the fiscal year totaling $5,034. Two of the expenditures, totaling $486, were related to costs incurred prior to the period of performance begin date. The Project Period Start Date per the grant award was October 1, 2023, however costs were incurred on September 6, 2023 and September 11, 2023. Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services (MHBG) – Audit procedures included testing 40 sampled transactions, totaling $1,695,512, from projects with period of performance end dates during the fiscal year for which the obligation had not been paid as of the end of the period of performance. Twelve of the expenditures, totaling $312,929, were not paid within 120 days of the period of performance end date, which is the allowed time period to liquidate obligations. The required liquidation date was December 29, 2023; however, these obligations were paid between January 2, 2024 and April 11, 2024. Questioned costs: Social Services Block Grant: $486 Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services: $312,929 Context: See “Condition.” Cause: The two exceptions for SSBG were related to travel costs where the employee’s supervisor approved the transaction, which was coded to the incorrect grant. For the exceptions noted in the liquidation period testing for MHBG, the late payments are due to the HHSC’s reconciliation and closeout process not being performed in a timely manner. Effect: Ineffective internal controls may result in questioned costs and noncompliance with the terms of the grant. In addition, costs paid with non-federal sources remain in the population which is being included on the schedule of federal expenditures (SEFA) for the current fiscal year. Repeat Finding: 2023-016 Recommendation: HHSC should provide additional training over its review process to ensure that reviewers are verifying that transactions are posted to the proper grant. Additionally, HHSC should verify that all obligations incurred are liquidated during the closeout process and adjustments are not made subsequent to closeout. 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: Social Services Block Grant Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services ALN: 93.667 93.958 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: Social Services Block Grant 2401TXSOSR October 1, 2023 – September 30, 2025 Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services 1B09SM085994, 6B09SM085994 October 1, 2021 – September 30, 2023 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), Health and Human Services Commission (HHSC) 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 awards 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. For awards with period of performance end dates during the fiscal year, audit procedures included testing transactions posted to the general ledger during the last month and after the period of performance end date. We noted the following instances of noncompliance: Social Services Block Grant (SSBG) – Audit procedures included testing 40 sampled transactions from projects with period of performance beginning dates during the fiscal year totaling $5,034. Two of the expenditures, totaling $486, were related to costs incurred prior to the period of performance begin date. The Project Period Start Date per the grant award was October 1, 2023, however costs were incurred on September 6, 2023 and September 11, 2023. Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services (MHBG) – Audit procedures included testing 40 sampled transactions, totaling $1,695,512, from projects with period of performance end dates during the fiscal year for which the obligation had not been paid as of the end of the period of performance. Twelve of the expenditures, totaling $312,929, were not paid within 120 days of the period of performance end date, which is the allowed time period to liquidate obligations. The required liquidation date was December 29, 2023; however, these obligations were paid between January 2, 2024 and April 11, 2024. Questioned costs: Social Services Block Grant: $486 Block Grants for Community Mental Health Services: $312,929 Context: See “Condition.” Cause: The two exceptions for SSBG were related to travel costs where the employee’s supervisor approved the transaction, which was coded to the incorrect grant. For the exceptions noted in the liquidation period testing for MHBG, the late payments are due to the HHSC’s reconciliation and closeout process not being performed in a timely manner. Effect: Ineffective internal controls may result in questioned costs and noncompliance with the terms of the grant. In addition, costs paid with non-federal sources remain in the population which is being included on the schedule of federal expenditures (SEFA) for the current fiscal year. Repeat Finding: 2023-016 Recommendation: HHSC should provide additional training over its review process to ensure that reviewers are verifying that transactions are posted to the proper grant. Additionally, HHSC should verify that all obligations incurred are liquidated during the closeout process and adjustments are not made subsequent to closeout. Views of responsible officials: HHSC concurs with the finding.
Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Program Title: Airport Improvement Program ALN: 20.106 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 3–48–SBGP–148–2022 September 14, 2022 – September 13, 2026 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 section 200.303(a), Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) must 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). Per 2 CFR 200.403, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria 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 recipient or subrecipient. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. (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 requirements of any other federally – financed program in either the current or a prior period. (g) Be adequately documented. Condition: Audit procedures included a sample of 40 expenditures, totaling $9,426,808, to test allowability with grant awards. We noted that for one of the 40 samples, TxDOT overpaid an invoice to a vendor by $70,000. Upon detection by the vendor, TxDOT corrected the overpayment by reducing a subsequent payment to the vendor by the $70,000. Questioned costs: None Context: See “Condition.” Cause: The amount requested to be reimbursed was manually entered incorrectly in eGrants. TxDOT did not detect the discrepancy during the review and approval process prior to the payment. Effect: Failure to thoroughly review invoices prior to payment may lead to overpayment or underpayment of funds to vendors and potential questioned costs. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that TxDOT provide additional training to individuals performing reviews of expenditures. We also recommend TxDOT establish internal controls to monitor that reviews of expenditures are being completed to the level of detail required by internal policies and procedures. Views of responsible officials: TxDOT AVN agrees with the finding.
Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Program Title: Airport Improvement Program ALN: 20.106 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 3–48–SBGP–148–2022 September 14, 2022 – September 13, 2026 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 section 200.303(a), Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) must 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). Per 2 CFR 200.403, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria 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 recipient or subrecipient. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. (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 requirements of any other federally – financed program in either the current or a prior period. (g) Be adequately documented. Condition: Audit procedures included a sample of 40 expenditures, totaling $9,426,808, to test allowability with grant awards. We noted that for one of the 40 samples, TxDOT overpaid an invoice to a vendor by $70,000. Upon detection by the vendor, TxDOT corrected the overpayment by reducing a subsequent payment to the vendor by the $70,000. Questioned costs: None Context: See “Condition.” Cause: The amount requested to be reimbursed was manually entered incorrectly in eGrants. TxDOT did not detect the discrepancy during the review and approval process prior to the payment. Effect: Failure to thoroughly review invoices prior to payment may lead to overpayment or underpayment of funds to vendors and potential questioned costs. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that TxDOT provide additional training to individuals performing reviews of expenditures. We also recommend TxDOT establish internal controls to monitor that reviews of expenditures are being completed to the level of detail required by internal policies and procedures. Views of responsible officials: TxDOT AVN agrees with the finding.
Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Program Title: Airport Improvement Program ALN: 20.106 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 3–48–SBGP–148–2022 September 14, 2022 – September 13, 2026 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 section 200.303(a), Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) must 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). Per 2 CFR 200.403, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria 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 recipient or subrecipient. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. (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 requirements of any other federally – financed program in either the current or a prior period. (g) Be adequately documented. Condition: Audit procedures included a sample of 40 expenditures, totaling $9,426,808, to test allowability with grant awards. We noted that for one of the 40 samples, TxDOT overpaid an invoice to a vendor by $70,000. Upon detection by the vendor, TxDOT corrected the overpayment by reducing a subsequent payment to the vendor by the $70,000. Questioned costs: None Context: See “Condition.” Cause: The amount requested to be reimbursed was manually entered incorrectly in eGrants. TxDOT did not detect the discrepancy during the review and approval process prior to the payment. Effect: Failure to thoroughly review invoices prior to payment may lead to overpayment or underpayment of funds to vendors and potential questioned costs. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that TxDOT provide additional training to individuals performing reviews of expenditures. We also recommend TxDOT establish internal controls to monitor that reviews of expenditures are being completed to the level of detail required by internal policies and procedures. Views of responsible officials: TxDOT AVN agrees with the finding.
Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation Federal Program Title: Airport Improvement Program ALN: 20.106 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 3–48–SBGP–148–2022 September 14, 2022 – September 13, 2026 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 section 200.303(a), Texas Department of Transportation (TxDOT) must 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). Per 2 CFR 200.403, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria 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 recipient or subrecipient. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. (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 requirements of any other federally – financed program in either the current or a prior period. (g) Be adequately documented. Condition: Audit procedures included a sample of 40 expenditures, totaling $9,426,808, to test allowability with grant awards. We noted that for one of the 40 samples, TxDOT overpaid an invoice to a vendor by $70,000. Upon detection by the vendor, TxDOT corrected the overpayment by reducing a subsequent payment to the vendor by the $70,000. Questioned costs: None Context: See “Condition.” Cause: The amount requested to be reimbursed was manually entered incorrectly in eGrants. TxDOT did not detect the discrepancy during the review and approval process prior to the payment. Effect: Failure to thoroughly review invoices prior to payment may lead to overpayment or underpayment of funds to vendors and potential questioned costs. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that TxDOT provide additional training to individuals performing reviews of expenditures. We also recommend TxDOT establish internal controls to monitor that reviews of expenditures are being completed to the level of detail required by internal policies and procedures. Views of responsible officials: TxDOT AVN agrees with the finding.
Activities Allowed and Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Indirect Costs Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Federal Program Title: Employment Service Cluster ALN: 17.207, 17.801 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 23555DV000036 – 01, 24555DV000076 – 01 October 1, 2022 – December 31, 2024, October 1, 2023 – December 31, 2025 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 section 200.303(a), Texas Veterans Commission (TVC) must: 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). Per 2 CFR section 200.403, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria 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 recipient or subrecipient. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. (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 requirements of any other federally – financed program in either the current or a prior period. (g) Be adequately documented. Condition: Audit procedures included a sample of five indirect cost expenditures, totaling $1,248,175, incurred during the fiscal year to verify that the rates used were in accordance with the terms and conditions of the award and the amounts claimed were applied to the appropriate base. During our testing, we noted one sample in which an incorrect rate was applied to the base, resulting in $69,481 of unallowed indirect costs. In addition, there was no evidence of review and approval for three of the five expenditures selected for testing, including the expenditure noted in the preceding paragraph. Questioned costs: $69,481 Context: See “Condition.” Cause: Management failed to retain documentation that would support the review and approval of the indirect cost amounts. The exceptions were caused due to high turnover within the agency. Employees who were responsible for the approvals are no longer employed through TVC. Effect: Lack of formal documentation of reviews may result in questioned costs. In addition, failure to maintain adequate documentation pertinent to a federal award may result in noncompliance with grant terms and conditions. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend TVC enforce establish document retention processes to ensure it has access to documentation for review in the event of management turnover. In addition, we recommend TVC strengthen its controls over the review of the indirect cost calculations to ensure accuracy of costs being calculated. Views of responsible officials: TVC agrees to the recommendation of improved record retention in the event of management turnover. TVC also agrees to the recommendation of strengthening its internal controls over the review of VES’s grant costs associated with the indirect revenues being calculated.
Activities Allowed and Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles – Indirect Costs Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Labor Federal Program Title: Employment Service Cluster ALN: 17.207, 17.801 Pass-Through Agency: N/A Pass-Through Number(s): N/A Award Number and Period: 23555DV000036 – 01, 24555DV000076 – 01 October 1, 2022 – December 31, 2024, October 1, 2023 – December 31, 2025 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 section 200.303(a), Texas Veterans Commission (TVC) must: 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). Per 2 CFR section 200.403, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria 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 recipient or subrecipient. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. (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 requirements of any other federally – financed program in either the current or a prior period. (g) Be adequately documented. Condition: Audit procedures included a sample of five indirect cost expenditures, totaling $1,248,175, incurred during the fiscal year to verify that the rates used were in accordance with the terms and conditions of the award and the amounts claimed were applied to the appropriate base. During our testing, we noted one sample in which an incorrect rate was applied to the base, resulting in $69,481 of unallowed indirect costs. In addition, there was no evidence of review and approval for three of the five expenditures selected for testing, including the expenditure noted in the preceding paragraph. Questioned costs: $69,481 Context: See “Condition.” Cause: Management failed to retain documentation that would support the review and approval of the indirect cost amounts. The exceptions were caused due to high turnover within the agency. Employees who were responsible for the approvals are no longer employed through TVC. Effect: Lack of formal documentation of reviews may result in questioned costs. In addition, failure to maintain adequate documentation pertinent to a federal award may result in noncompliance with grant terms and conditions. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend TVC enforce establish document retention processes to ensure it has access to documentation for review in the event of management turnover. In addition, we recommend TVC strengthen its controls over the review of the indirect cost calculations to ensure accuracy of costs being calculated. Views of responsible officials: TVC agrees to the recommendation of improved record retention in the event of management turnover. TVC also agrees to the recommendation of strengthening its internal controls over the review of VES’s grant costs associated with the indirect revenues being calculated.
Finding 2024-005: Reportable finding considered a significant deficiency - Inadequate Controls over Identification of Unallowable Costs in the Indirect Cost Pool Program name: Applies to all federal program utilizing indirect cost rates Assistance Listing: All Federal awarding agency: All Pass-through Entity: All Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.403 and 2 CFR 200.412–415, costs charged to federal awards, whether direct or indirect, must be allowable under the cost principles of Subpart E. Organizations must have adequate internal controls to identify, segregate, and exclude unallowable costs from charges to federal programs. In particular, indirect cost pools used to calculate rates billed to federal awards must not include unallowable costs such as fundraising, entertainment, or other expressly unallowable expenses. Condition: During our audit procedures, we noted that the Organization does not identify or code unallowable costs (e.g., fundraising event expenses) within its accounting system at the time of transaction entry. As part of our review of the General and Administrative (G&A) cost pool used for indirect cost rate calculations, we identified unallowable costs included in the detailed listing. Per discussion with management, these costs are not intended to be charged to federal awards. Management explained that federal drawdowns are based on a provisional rate and unallowable costs are manually excluded during the closing and cost submission process. Cause: The Organization lacks system-based controls and procedures to flag or segregate unallowable costs during transaction coding. The current process relies heavily on manual review and adjustments at year-end, which increases the risk of unallowable costs being inadvertently included in rates charged to federal programs. Effect: Including unallowable costs in the indirect cost pool—whether or not ultimately billed—represents a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Although management asserts that such costs are removed prior to federal reimbursement claims, the absence of preventive controls increases the risk of noncompliance, incorrect cost submissions, and potential disallowed costs during future oversight or audits. Repeat finding: This is not a repeat finding. Questioned costs: None identified as costs were reportedly removed prior to billing; however, the issue represents a control weakness. Perspective: This control deficiency affects the Organization’s system-wide treatment of indirect costs across all federal programs using the provisional rate. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization: • Implement accounting system enhancements or protocols to flag unallowable costs at the point of entry to ensure proper coding and segregation. • Establish written procedures and staff training to reinforce cost allowability standards under Uniform Guidance. • Consider performing interim reviews of indirect cost pool activity to ensure early identification and removal of unallowable expenses. Management’s response and corrective action plan (unaudited): See corrective action plan.
Finding 2024-005: Reportable finding considered a significant deficiency - Inadequate Controls over Identification of Unallowable Costs in the Indirect Cost Pool Program name: Applies to all federal program utilizing indirect cost rates Assistance Listing: All Federal awarding agency: All Pass-through Entity: All Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.403 and 2 CFR 200.412–415, costs charged to federal awards, whether direct or indirect, must be allowable under the cost principles of Subpart E. Organizations must have adequate internal controls to identify, segregate, and exclude unallowable costs from charges to federal programs. In particular, indirect cost pools used to calculate rates billed to federal awards must not include unallowable costs such as fundraising, entertainment, or other expressly unallowable expenses. Condition: During our audit procedures, we noted that the Organization does not identify or code unallowable costs (e.g., fundraising event expenses) within its accounting system at the time of transaction entry. As part of our review of the General and Administrative (G&A) cost pool used for indirect cost rate calculations, we identified unallowable costs included in the detailed listing. Per discussion with management, these costs are not intended to be charged to federal awards. Management explained that federal drawdowns are based on a provisional rate and unallowable costs are manually excluded during the closing and cost submission process. Cause: The Organization lacks system-based controls and procedures to flag or segregate unallowable costs during transaction coding. The current process relies heavily on manual review and adjustments at year-end, which increases the risk of unallowable costs being inadvertently included in rates charged to federal programs. Effect: Including unallowable costs in the indirect cost pool—whether or not ultimately billed—represents a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Although management asserts that such costs are removed prior to federal reimbursement claims, the absence of preventive controls increases the risk of noncompliance, incorrect cost submissions, and potential disallowed costs during future oversight or audits. Repeat finding: This is not a repeat finding. Questioned costs: None identified as costs were reportedly removed prior to billing; however, the issue represents a control weakness. Perspective: This control deficiency affects the Organization’s system-wide treatment of indirect costs across all federal programs using the provisional rate. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization: • Implement accounting system enhancements or protocols to flag unallowable costs at the point of entry to ensure proper coding and segregation. • Establish written procedures and staff training to reinforce cost allowability standards under Uniform Guidance. • Consider performing interim reviews of indirect cost pool activity to ensure early identification and removal of unallowable expenses. Management’s response and corrective action plan (unaudited): See corrective action plan.
Finding 2024-005: Reportable finding considered a significant deficiency - Inadequate Controls over Identification of Unallowable Costs in the Indirect Cost Pool Program name: Applies to all federal program utilizing indirect cost rates Assistance Listing: All Federal awarding agency: All Pass-through Entity: All Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.403 and 2 CFR 200.412–415, costs charged to federal awards, whether direct or indirect, must be allowable under the cost principles of Subpart E. Organizations must have adequate internal controls to identify, segregate, and exclude unallowable costs from charges to federal programs. In particular, indirect cost pools used to calculate rates billed to federal awards must not include unallowable costs such as fundraising, entertainment, or other expressly unallowable expenses. Condition: During our audit procedures, we noted that the Organization does not identify or code unallowable costs (e.g., fundraising event expenses) within its accounting system at the time of transaction entry. As part of our review of the General and Administrative (G&A) cost pool used for indirect cost rate calculations, we identified unallowable costs included in the detailed listing. Per discussion with management, these costs are not intended to be charged to federal awards. Management explained that federal drawdowns are based on a provisional rate and unallowable costs are manually excluded during the closing and cost submission process. Cause: The Organization lacks system-based controls and procedures to flag or segregate unallowable costs during transaction coding. The current process relies heavily on manual review and adjustments at year-end, which increases the risk of unallowable costs being inadvertently included in rates charged to federal programs. Effect: Including unallowable costs in the indirect cost pool—whether or not ultimately billed—represents a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Although management asserts that such costs are removed prior to federal reimbursement claims, the absence of preventive controls increases the risk of noncompliance, incorrect cost submissions, and potential disallowed costs during future oversight or audits. Repeat finding: This is not a repeat finding. Questioned costs: None identified as costs were reportedly removed prior to billing; however, the issue represents a control weakness. Perspective: This control deficiency affects the Organization’s system-wide treatment of indirect costs across all federal programs using the provisional rate. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization: • Implement accounting system enhancements or protocols to flag unallowable costs at the point of entry to ensure proper coding and segregation. • Establish written procedures and staff training to reinforce cost allowability standards under Uniform Guidance. • Consider performing interim reviews of indirect cost pool activity to ensure early identification and removal of unallowable expenses. Management’s response and corrective action plan (unaudited): See corrective action plan.
Finding 2024-005: Reportable finding considered a significant deficiency - Inadequate Controls over Identification of Unallowable Costs in the Indirect Cost Pool Program name: Applies to all federal program utilizing indirect cost rates Assistance Listing: All Federal awarding agency: All Pass-through Entity: All Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.403 and 2 CFR 200.412–415, costs charged to federal awards, whether direct or indirect, must be allowable under the cost principles of Subpart E. Organizations must have adequate internal controls to identify, segregate, and exclude unallowable costs from charges to federal programs. In particular, indirect cost pools used to calculate rates billed to federal awards must not include unallowable costs such as fundraising, entertainment, or other expressly unallowable expenses. Condition: During our audit procedures, we noted that the Organization does not identify or code unallowable costs (e.g., fundraising event expenses) within its accounting system at the time of transaction entry. As part of our review of the General and Administrative (G&A) cost pool used for indirect cost rate calculations, we identified unallowable costs included in the detailed listing. Per discussion with management, these costs are not intended to be charged to federal awards. Management explained that federal drawdowns are based on a provisional rate and unallowable costs are manually excluded during the closing and cost submission process. Cause: The Organization lacks system-based controls and procedures to flag or segregate unallowable costs during transaction coding. The current process relies heavily on manual review and adjustments at year-end, which increases the risk of unallowable costs being inadvertently included in rates charged to federal programs. Effect: Including unallowable costs in the indirect cost pool—whether or not ultimately billed—represents a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Although management asserts that such costs are removed prior to federal reimbursement claims, the absence of preventive controls increases the risk of noncompliance, incorrect cost submissions, and potential disallowed costs during future oversight or audits. Repeat finding: This is not a repeat finding. Questioned costs: None identified as costs were reportedly removed prior to billing; however, the issue represents a control weakness. Perspective: This control deficiency affects the Organization’s system-wide treatment of indirect costs across all federal programs using the provisional rate. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization: • Implement accounting system enhancements or protocols to flag unallowable costs at the point of entry to ensure proper coding and segregation. • Establish written procedures and staff training to reinforce cost allowability standards under Uniform Guidance. • Consider performing interim reviews of indirect cost pool activity to ensure early identification and removal of unallowable expenses. Management’s response and corrective action plan (unaudited): See corrective action plan.
Finding 2024-005: Reportable finding considered a significant deficiency - Inadequate Controls over Identification of Unallowable Costs in the Indirect Cost Pool Program name: Applies to all federal program utilizing indirect cost rates Assistance Listing: All Federal awarding agency: All Pass-through Entity: All Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.403 and 2 CFR 200.412–415, costs charged to federal awards, whether direct or indirect, must be allowable under the cost principles of Subpart E. Organizations must have adequate internal controls to identify, segregate, and exclude unallowable costs from charges to federal programs. In particular, indirect cost pools used to calculate rates billed to federal awards must not include unallowable costs such as fundraising, entertainment, or other expressly unallowable expenses. Condition: During our audit procedures, we noted that the Organization does not identify or code unallowable costs (e.g., fundraising event expenses) within its accounting system at the time of transaction entry. As part of our review of the General and Administrative (G&A) cost pool used for indirect cost rate calculations, we identified unallowable costs included in the detailed listing. Per discussion with management, these costs are not intended to be charged to federal awards. Management explained that federal drawdowns are based on a provisional rate and unallowable costs are manually excluded during the closing and cost submission process. Cause: The Organization lacks system-based controls and procedures to flag or segregate unallowable costs during transaction coding. The current process relies heavily on manual review and adjustments at year-end, which increases the risk of unallowable costs being inadvertently included in rates charged to federal programs. Effect: Including unallowable costs in the indirect cost pool—whether or not ultimately billed—represents a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Although management asserts that such costs are removed prior to federal reimbursement claims, the absence of preventive controls increases the risk of noncompliance, incorrect cost submissions, and potential disallowed costs during future oversight or audits. Repeat finding: This is not a repeat finding. Questioned costs: None identified as costs were reportedly removed prior to billing; however, the issue represents a control weakness. Perspective: This control deficiency affects the Organization’s system-wide treatment of indirect costs across all federal programs using the provisional rate. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization: • Implement accounting system enhancements or protocols to flag unallowable costs at the point of entry to ensure proper coding and segregation. • Establish written procedures and staff training to reinforce cost allowability standards under Uniform Guidance. • Consider performing interim reviews of indirect cost pool activity to ensure early identification and removal of unallowable expenses. Management’s response and corrective action plan (unaudited): See corrective action plan.
U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development #14.251 Economic Development Initiative, Community Project Funding, and Miscellaneous Grants 2024-005 Lack of Written Allocation Plan for Shared Costs (Significant Deficiency) Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.405(d), any cost allocated to a federal award must be allocable, reasonable, and based on a method that is supported and consistently applied. In addition, 2 CFR §200.403(g) requires that costs be adequately documented. A written allocation plan is essential to demonstrate that the allocation of shared costs is equitable and in compliance with Uniform Guidance. Condition: The Organization does not have a written cost allocation plan to document the basis for distributing shared costs such as salaries, occupancy, and administrative expenses among its programs and grants. Instead, management relies on grant budgets and staff judgment to determine which costs are charged to each grant. As a result, there is no consistent or documented methodology supporting the allocation of shared costs to benefiting programs. Cause: Management has not developed or implemented a written cost allocation plan. Cost allocations have historically been based on grant budgets or management's understanding of what each grant will support, rather than on a systematic and documented method. Effect: Without a written cost allocation plan, there is an increased risk that costs may not be allocated consistently or accurately among programs and grants. This could result in noncompliance with federal cost principles and potential questioned costs if expenses are not properly supported. Questioned Costs: None noted. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization develop and implement a written cost allocation plan that outlines the basis for distributing shared costs, including the allocation methodology, the types of costs involved, and the programs affected. The plan should be reviewed periodically and updated as necessary to reflect changes in funding or operations. Supporting documentation for allocations should be maintained and readily available for audit purposes. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees and recognizes the importance of consistent allocation methodologies. Corrective Action: Increase the Cost Allocation Plan defining allocation bases for shared expenses, supported by documentation and reviewed annually.
2024 – 001: Improper Payroll Calculation Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Energy Federal Program Name: Research & Development Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 81.049 Federal Award Identification Number: DE-SC0023385 Award Period: July 1, 2023 – June 30, 2024 Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance, Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: Internal Control – Per 2 CFR section 200.303(a), a non-Federal entity must: 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). Compliance – Per 2 CFR § 200.403, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award to be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award regarding 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. (g) Be adequately documented. Condition: The University incorrectly calculated payroll costs charged to the grant after an employee was double paid for the same work hours. Questioned costs: $400. Context: This condition occurred for 1 out of 40 payroll costs selected for testing resulting in $400 being incorrectly charged to the program. Cause: An employee failed to accurately enter time worked into the university timekeeping system for the pay period 5/1/24 – 5/15/24. The employee reported the hours to their department contact on 5/29/24, which was after the pay period had closed and paychecks had already been processed. The department liaison contacted Kronos Support to have the hours added to the timecard retroactively. Kronos Support received confirmation from the employee that the missed hours could be added to the paycheck for 6/14/24. During payroll processing for 6/14/24, Kronos Support added the missed hours to the employee’s payline on 6/5/24. The department liaison also submitted a CU Special Pay for the same missed hours on 6/5/24. Due to the timing of each separate transaction, Kronos Support did not have visibility into the duplication of the hours. The department failed to identify the duplication during its review of payroll reports. Effect: Expenditures may be incorrectly charged to the program. Repeat Finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that the institution strengthen its internal controls to ensure that expenditures are reviewed and adjusted for, if necessary, in a timely manner. Views of responsible officials: Management acknowledges the finding.
2024-001 – Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Major Federal Program and Noncompliance – Budget Allocation. Career and Technical Education – Basic Grants to the States, ALN # 84.048 and #84.048A, Award Numbers 233480 231400, 233480 231405, 233480 231410 and 243520 24124; and American Rescue Plan Act, Homeless Children and Youth II (COVID-19), ALN # 84.425W, Award Number 211012 2122 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education 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. Title 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 function and object codes misallocated in comparison to the grant budget approved by MDE. Neither grant misallocations were material to the grants. 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 were not recorded accurately with the grant budget by either function or object codes. Questioned Costs – None. The grants were not overspent in total, nor would the grant expenditure tests have been considered unallowable if they had been correctly allocated with the budget. Career and Technical Education had five instances. American Rescue Plan Act, Homeless Children and Youth II had one instance which was adjusted and corrected. Recommendation – We recommend the School District expand its internal control over budgetary review of its grants, particularly in regard to reviewing MDE approved budgeted amounts to actual expenditures. View of Responsible Officials – The School District agrees with our finding and recommendation. Planned Corrective Actions – See corrective action plan, annexed.
2024-001 – Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Major Federal Program and Noncompliance – Budget Allocation. Career and Technical Education – Basic Grants to the States, ALN # 84.048 and #84.048A, Award Numbers 233480 231400, 233480 231405, 233480 231410 and 243520 24124; and American Rescue Plan Act, Homeless Children and Youth II (COVID-19), ALN # 84.425W, Award Number 211012 2122 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education 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. Title 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 function and object codes misallocated in comparison to the grant budget approved by MDE. Neither grant misallocations were material to the grants. 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 were not recorded accurately with the grant budget by either function or object codes. Questioned Costs – None. The grants were not overspent in total, nor would the grant expenditure tests have been considered unallowable if they had been correctly allocated with the budget. Career and Technical Education had five instances. American Rescue Plan Act, Homeless Children and Youth II had one instance which was adjusted and corrected. Recommendation – We recommend the School District expand its internal control over budgetary review of its grants, particularly in regard to reviewing MDE approved budgeted amounts to actual expenditures. View of Responsible Officials – The School District agrees with our finding and recommendation. Planned Corrective Actions – See corrective action plan, annexed.
2024-001 – Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Major Federal Program and Noncompliance – Budget Allocation. Career and Technical Education – Basic Grants to the States, ALN # 84.048 and #84.048A, Award Numbers 233480 231400, 233480 231405, 233480 231410 and 243520 24124; and American Rescue Plan Act, Homeless Children and Youth II (COVID-19), ALN # 84.425W, Award Number 211012 2122 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education 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. Title 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 function and object codes misallocated in comparison to the grant budget approved by MDE. Neither grant misallocations were material to the grants. 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 were not recorded accurately with the grant budget by either function or object codes. Questioned Costs – None. The grants were not overspent in total, nor would the grant expenditure tests have been considered unallowable if they had been correctly allocated with the budget. Career and Technical Education had five instances. American Rescue Plan Act, Homeless Children and Youth II had one instance which was adjusted and corrected. Recommendation – We recommend the School District expand its internal control over budgetary review of its grants, particularly in regard to reviewing MDE approved budgeted amounts to actual expenditures. View of Responsible Officials – The School District agrees with our finding and recommendation. Planned Corrective Actions – See corrective action plan, annexed.
2024-001 – Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Major Federal Program and Noncompliance – Budget Allocation. Career and Technical Education – Basic Grants to the States, ALN # 84.048 and #84.048A, Award Numbers 233480 231400, 233480 231405, 233480 231410 and 243520 24124; and American Rescue Plan Act, Homeless Children and Youth II (COVID-19), ALN # 84.425W, Award Number 211012 2122 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education 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. Title 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 function and object codes misallocated in comparison to the grant budget approved by MDE. Neither grant misallocations were material to the grants. 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 were not recorded accurately with the grant budget by either function or object codes. Questioned Costs – None. The grants were not overspent in total, nor would the grant expenditure tests have been considered unallowable if they had been correctly allocated with the budget. Career and Technical Education had five instances. American Rescue Plan Act, Homeless Children and Youth II had one instance which was adjusted and corrected. Recommendation – We recommend the School District expand its internal control over budgetary review of its grants, particularly in regard to reviewing MDE approved budgeted amounts to actual expenditures. View of Responsible Officials – The School District agrees with our finding and recommendation. Planned Corrective Actions – See corrective action plan, annexed.
2024-001 – Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Major Federal Program and Noncompliance – Budget Allocation. Career and Technical Education – Basic Grants to the States, ALN # 84.048 and #84.048A, Award Numbers 233480 231400, 233480 231405, 233480 231410 and 243520 24124; and American Rescue Plan Act, Homeless Children and Youth II (COVID-19), ALN # 84.425W, Award Number 211012 2122 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education 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. Title 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 function and object codes misallocated in comparison to the grant budget approved by MDE. Neither grant misallocations were material to the grants. 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 were not recorded accurately with the grant budget by either function or object codes. Questioned Costs – None. The grants were not overspent in total, nor would the grant expenditure tests have been considered unallowable if they had been correctly allocated with the budget. Career and Technical Education had five instances. American Rescue Plan Act, Homeless Children and Youth II had one instance which was adjusted and corrected. Recommendation – We recommend the School District expand its internal control over budgetary review of its grants, particularly in regard to reviewing MDE approved budgeted amounts to actual expenditures. View of Responsible Officials – The School District agrees with our finding and recommendation. Planned Corrective Actions – See corrective action plan, annexed.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Justice Federal Program Title: Postconviction Testing of DNA Evidence; Capital Case Litigation Initiative Assistance Listing Number: 16.820; 16.746 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: Multiple Award Period: July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024 Type of Finding: Other Matters Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.516(4): Known questioned costs that are greater than $25,000 for a Federal program which is not audited as a major program should be reported as finding. Except for audit follow-up, the auditor is not required under this part to perform audit procedures for such a Federal program; therefore, the auditor will normally not find questioned costs for a program that is not audited as a major program. However, if the auditor does become aware of questioned costs for a Federal program that is not audited as a major program (e.g., as part of audit follow-up or other audit procedures) and the known questioned costs are greater than $25,000, then the auditor must report this as an audit finding. Additionally, per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.303, nonfederal entities receiving federal awards are required to establish and maintain internal controls designed to reasonably ensure compliance with federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. CFR 200.403(a) requires costs incurred on federal awards to be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto. Condition: CLA was notified by the Post-Award Office of Sponsored Programs that they were informed about several irregularities and potentially unallowable costs related to certain Department of Justice Awards. Context: The University conducted an internal investigation in conjunction with the Idaho State Board of Education Internal Audit and Advisory Services, the investigation identified unallowable costs/activities that were charged to Department of Justice Awards. The University notified the Department of Justice of this situation through a Disclosure Letter to the Department. The disallowed costs were related to time and effort that was not allocable to the affected grants as well as lobbying efforts and related indirect cost recoveries. Questioned costs: $65,750.67. Effect: The University was out of compliance as it relates to charging disallowable costs/activities to federal programs. Cause: An employee was found to have intentionally overridden the system of internal controls in violation of University policy. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the University continue to foster a research and creative activity environment that stresses the importance of compliance and prompt disclosure and resolution of any self-identified issues. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding and has developed a plan to correct the finding.
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Justice Federal Program Title: Postconviction Testing of DNA Evidence; Capital Case Litigation Initiative Assistance Listing Number: 16.820; 16.746 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: Multiple Award Period: July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024 Type of Finding: Other Matters Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria or specific requirement: Per 2 CFR 200.516(4): Known questioned costs that are greater than $25,000 for a Federal program which is not audited as a major program should be reported as finding. Except for audit follow-up, the auditor is not required under this part to perform audit procedures for such a Federal program; therefore, the auditor will normally not find questioned costs for a program that is not audited as a major program. However, if the auditor does become aware of questioned costs for a Federal program that is not audited as a major program (e.g., as part of audit follow-up or other audit procedures) and the known questioned costs are greater than $25,000, then the auditor must report this as an audit finding. Additionally, per Uniform Guidance 2 CFR 200.303, nonfederal entities receiving federal awards are required to establish and maintain internal controls designed to reasonably ensure compliance with federal laws, regulations, and program compliance requirements. CFR 200.403(a) requires costs incurred on federal awards to be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto. Condition: CLA was notified by the Post-Award Office of Sponsored Programs that they were informed about several irregularities and potentially unallowable costs related to certain Department of Justice Awards. Context: The University conducted an internal investigation in conjunction with the Idaho State Board of Education Internal Audit and Advisory Services, the investigation identified unallowable costs/activities that were charged to Department of Justice Awards. The University notified the Department of Justice of this situation through a Disclosure Letter to the Department. The disallowed costs were related to time and effort that was not allocable to the affected grants as well as lobbying efforts and related indirect cost recoveries. Questioned costs: $65,750.67. Effect: The University was out of compliance as it relates to charging disallowable costs/activities to federal programs. Cause: An employee was found to have intentionally overridden the system of internal controls in violation of University policy. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommend the University continue to foster a research and creative activity environment that stresses the importance of compliance and prompt disclosure and resolution of any self-identified issues. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding and has developed a plan to correct the finding.
Finding: Allowable Costs and Allowable Activities Federal Assistance Listing Number 84.425U – COVID-19 – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER III) Department of Education, Passed-Through Colorado Department of Education Award Number – 4414/4431/9414; Award Year 2021 Criteria: According to 2 CFR Part 200.403 factors affecting allowability of costs – 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, (e) be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles, (f) to 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 and (g) be adequately documented. In addition, according to 2 CFR Part 200.303, the non-Federal entity must 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. Condition: During our testing we noted the following: a. 3 out of the 25 payroll selections applied to the grant did not agree back to supporting payroll information. b. The indirect costs applied to the grant were not consistently applied between the quarters of the fiscal year due to variations in the indirect cost base used. Questioned Costs: a. $2,089. Questioned costs were determined by reviewing the payroll registers for the three impacted selections. b. None. The District under applied the amount of indirect costs allowable to the grant. Context: a. We tested 25 payroll, 25 nonpayroll and 25 fringe benefit transactions applied to the grant for the year ended June 30, 2024. The tested population covered expenditures of $7.1 million and the total population of expenditures were approximately $24.4 million. A non-statistical sampling methodology was used to select the sample. b. We tested the four quarters indirect costs calculations which were applied to the above grant award numbers for the year ended June 30, 2024. The tested population covered expenditures of $3.0 million and the total population of expenditures were approximately $3.1 million. A non-statistical sampling methodology was used to select the sample. Effect: The District did not have adequate internal controls in place over the ESSER grant which resulted in unallowable costs being applied to the grant and inconsistently applying indirect costs to the grant. Cause: The District continued to experience turnover within the positions overseeing grants during fiscal year 2024. There were not detailed reviews over the calculations and supporting documentation used to determine the expenditure amount to be applied to the grant. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not applicable. Recommendation: We recommend that the District strengthen the internal controls surrounding review of all expenditures applied against federal grants including the supporting detail or calculations used to determine the expenditure amount to help ensure it recalculates and is consistent with District polices and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: We agree with the finding. See separate report for planned corrective actions.
Assistance Listing Number, Federal Agency, and Program Name - 93.323, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, COVID-19 - Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (ELC) Federal Award Identification Number and Year - 2024 Pass through Entity - Wayne County Regional Educational Service Agency Finding Type - Material weakness and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria - Per 2 CFR 200.300(a), nonfederal entities 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. These internal controls should align with the 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). Per 2 CFR 200.403(g), costs must be adequately documented. Condition - The School District's controls did not prevent, or detect and correct in a timely manner, costs charged to the grant in excess of the related invoices. Questioned Costs - None Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed - N/A - Refer to context below. Context - In a sample of 13 non payroll related transactions, we identified 3 transactions where the costs charged to the grant exceeded the related invoices. The School District used a manual allocation process through a manual journal entry to charge expenses to the grant that resulted in the grant being charged $48,447 in excess of the supporting invoices. As of June 30, 2024, the School District had not yet requested reimbursement for the excess costs charged; the request was made and payment was received subsequent to year end. Upon identification of the error, the School District posted a manual journal entry to remove the duplicate costs of $48,447 from the grant fund and reduced the SEFA by this amount for the year ended June 30, 2024. The School District followed the guidance of the pass through entity provided subsequent to year end. Cause and Effect - Controls in place did not prevent, or detect and correct in a timely manner, an instance of noncompliance. The controls in place to verify that the manual adjusting journal entry was complete and accurate were not effective. As a result, the initial SEFA provided to the auditors was overstated by $48,447. The SEFA for the year ended June 30, 2024 was corrected. Recommendation - We recommend that the School District review its processes and controls to ensure the preparation and review of journal entries to charge costs to grant funds include a review for duplicate expenses. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan - The Grant Accounting team will develop a standard operating procedure on review and approval of journal entries. The Grant Account Team will provide training to Grant Compliance staff members on the defined process. Grant Compliance Senior Director and Assistant Director will be responsible for ensuring journal requests are submitted following the outlined operating procedure. Grant Accounting staff members will review submitted materials to ensure no invoice is overcharged and then process journal request.
Reference Number: 2024-003 Description: Written Procedures Condition and Criteria: At the beginning of the audit period, the District did not have a Federal Funds Manual in place to document policies and procedures for managing federal awards in compliance 2 CFR 200, Subparts D and E. The Uniform Guidance requires the following written procedures: Written procedures for grant financial management (2 CFR 200.302 and 2 CFR 200.305) Written procurement policy (2 CFR 200.318a) Written procedures for allowable costs (2 CFR 200.403) Written procedures for managing and safeguarding property or equipment acquired with federal funds (2 CFR 200.313) During the course of the audit, the District developed and implemented a Federal Funds Manual to address this deficiency. Cause: There was an administrative oversight of ensuring the District had these written procedures in place. Effect: The absence of a documented Federal Funds Manual increased the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements and ineffective management of federal funds. However, the district’s subsequent implementation of the manual before the audit’s completion reduced this risk. Recommendation: We recommend that the District continue to utilize and periodically review the Federal Funds Manual to ensure it remains comprehensive and up-to-date with changes in federal requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action: See Corrective Action Plan.
Reference Number: 2024-003 Description: Written Procedures Condition and Criteria: At the beginning of the audit period, the District did not have a Federal Funds Manual in place to document policies and procedures for managing federal awards in compliance 2 CFR 200, Subparts D and E. The Uniform Guidance requires the following written procedures: Written procedures for grant financial management (2 CFR 200.302 and 2 CFR 200.305) Written procurement policy (2 CFR 200.318a) Written procedures for allowable costs (2 CFR 200.403) Written procedures for managing and safeguarding property or equipment acquired with federal funds (2 CFR 200.313) During the course of the audit, the District developed and implemented a Federal Funds Manual to address this deficiency. Cause: There was an administrative oversight of ensuring the District had these written procedures in place. Effect: The absence of a documented Federal Funds Manual increased the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements and ineffective management of federal funds. However, the district’s subsequent implementation of the manual before the audit’s completion reduced this risk. Recommendation: We recommend that the District continue to utilize and periodically review the Federal Funds Manual to ensure it remains comprehensive and up-to-date with changes in federal requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action: See Corrective Action Plan.
Reference Number: 2024-003 Description: Written Procedures Condition and Criteria: At the beginning of the audit period, the District did not have a Federal Funds Manual in place to document policies and procedures for managing federal awards in compliance 2 CFR 200, Subparts D and E. The Uniform Guidance requires the following written procedures: Written procedures for grant financial management (2 CFR 200.302 and 2 CFR 200.305) Written procurement policy (2 CFR 200.318a) Written procedures for allowable costs (2 CFR 200.403) Written procedures for managing and safeguarding property or equipment acquired with federal funds (2 CFR 200.313) During the course of the audit, the District developed and implemented a Federal Funds Manual to address this deficiency. Cause: There was an administrative oversight of ensuring the District had these written procedures in place. Effect: The absence of a documented Federal Funds Manual increased the risk of noncompliance with federal requirements and ineffective management of federal funds. However, the district’s subsequent implementation of the manual before the audit’s completion reduced this risk. Recommendation: We recommend that the District continue to utilize and periodically review the Federal Funds Manual to ensure it remains comprehensive and up-to-date with changes in federal requirements. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action: See Corrective Action Plan.
FINDING 2024-004 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Activities Allowed or Unallowed Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listing Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): H027A220084, H027A230084 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: 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. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must 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 terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School District to ensure compliance with requirements related to the Special Education Cluster and Activities Allowed or Unallowed. Cause: The School District's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Activities Allowed or Unallowed compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School District at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements. A lack of segregation of duties within an internal control system could have also allowed noncompliance with the compliance requirements and allowed the misuse and mismanagement of federal funds and assets by not having proper oversight, reviews, and approvals over the activities of the programs. Questioned Costs: There we no questioned costs identified. Context: During the testing of a sample of 40 payroll disbursements charged to the Special Education Cluster during the audit period, the following exceptions were noted: For eight transactions selected, management was unable to provide an approved contract to support the selected employees' bi-weekly pay rate. For two transactions selected, management was unable to provide approved timecards for the selected hourly employee and time period. For seven transactions selected, management was unable to provide time and effort logs to support the allocation of one employee’s salary between the federal grant and the Education fund. The lack of controls was systematic throughout the audit period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School District's management establish a system of internal controls related to payroll disbursement charged to federal awards to ensure that the costs allocated are properly supported by contracts, timecards, and that the methodology for salary employees allocated to grant are supported by time and effort documentation. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-004 Information on the federal program: Subject: Special Education Cluster (IDEA) – Activities Allowed or Unallowed Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: Special Education Grants to States, Special Education Preschool Grants Assistance Listing Number: 84.027 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): H027A220084, H027A230084 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: 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. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must 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 terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School District to ensure compliance with requirements related to the Special Education Cluster and Activities Allowed or Unallowed. Cause: The School District's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Activities Allowed or Unallowed compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School District at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements. A lack of segregation of duties within an internal control system could have also allowed noncompliance with the compliance requirements and allowed the misuse and mismanagement of federal funds and assets by not having proper oversight, reviews, and approvals over the activities of the programs. Questioned Costs: There we no questioned costs identified. Context: During the testing of a sample of 40 payroll disbursements charged to the Special Education Cluster during the audit period, the following exceptions were noted: For eight transactions selected, management was unable to provide an approved contract to support the selected employees' bi-weekly pay rate. For two transactions selected, management was unable to provide approved timecards for the selected hourly employee and time period. For seven transactions selected, management was unable to provide time and effort logs to support the allocation of one employee’s salary between the federal grant and the Education fund. The lack of controls was systematic throughout the audit period. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School District's management establish a system of internal controls related to payroll disbursement charged to federal awards to ensure that the costs allocated are properly supported by contracts, timecards, and that the methodology for salary employees allocated to grant are supported by time and effort documentation. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
FINDING 2024-002 Information on the federal program: Subject: COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund – Activities Allowed or Unallowed Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 – Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listing Number: 84.425U Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Finding: Material Weakness Criteria: 2 CFR 200.403 establishes principles and standards for determining costs for federal awards carried out through grants, cost reimbursement contracts, and other agreements with state and local governments. To be allowable, under federal awards, cost must meet certain criteria: 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. g) Be adequately documented. h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.303 indicates that non-Federal Entities receiving Federal awards must 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 terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: An effective internal control system was not in place at the School District to ensure compliance with requirements related to the Education Stabilization Fund and Activities Allowed or Unallowed. Cause: The School District's management had not developed a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Activities Allowed or Unallowed compliance requirement. Effect: The failure to establish an effective internal control system placed the School District at risk of noncompliance with the grant agreement and the compliance requirements. A lack of segregation of duties within an internal control system could have also allowed noncompliance with the compliance requirements and allowed the misuse and mismanagement of federal funds and assets by not having proper oversight, reviews, and approvals over the activities of the programs. Questioned Costs: $730.43 Context: During the testing of payroll disbursements charged to the Education Stabilization Fund grant awards during the audit period, the following exceptions were noted: For 16 payroll disbursements, in a sample of 40, management was unable to provide an approved employee contract or hourly rate ordinance to support the selected employees' bi-weekly pay rate. For one transaction selection, an employee received a $730.43 one-time payment for a Teacher Appreciation Grant (TAG) funded by the 84.425U award. The Teacher Appreciation Grant has its own fund and is a state/local grant received to reward high-performing, eligible certified staff. The selected employee is a non-certified employee and did not qualify for a TAG award. There was no documentation provided to support work performed under this award to support allowability of the cost incurred. Identification as a repeat finding, if applicable: No. Recommendation: We recommended that the School District maintain supporting documentation for vendor and payroll disbursements to support costs charged to the federal grant awards. For payroll disbursements charged to Federal awards, management should maintain time records to support payroll costs allocated to Education Stabilization Grant funds to verify they are allowable and supported by documentation for work performed under the award. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management agrees with the finding and has prepared a corrective action plan.
Finding Number 2024-004: Costs Incurred Outside Period of Performance (Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over compliance and Instance of Noncompliance – Period of Performance) FALN Number 16.575; Federal Agency/Pass-through Entity – Program Name U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Victims of Crime – Crime Victim Assistance; Award Number 94-3302014; Award Year 2023-2024 Criteria: 2024 Compliance Supplement and 2 CFR 200.403(h) stated that a non-federal entity may charge only allowable costs incurred during the approved budget period of a federal award’s period of performance. Condition/Context: As a result of our audit procedures, we noted 1 timesheet tested in which the costs incurred were charged outside of the program’s performance period. The timesheet had payroll costs incurred during the pay period of 12/24/2023 – 1/6/2024; however, the contract had a performance period of 1/1/2024 – 12/31/2024. Repeat Finding from Prior Year(s): Yes, Finding Number 2023-007 Cause and Effect: The Health System did not have proper controls in place to ensure only costs incurred in the period of performance were charged to the program, which resulted in costs outside of period of performance being charged to the program. Questioned Cost: None Recommendation: We recommend management review policies and procedures of the program to ensure the costs incurred are appropriately charged based on the contracts’ performance periods. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management agrees with the finding. The Health System has finalized the standard work procedure titled, Request for Funds/Reimbursement Claims (2-201’s), to ensure costs are appropriately charged based on the contract’s performance periods. Review of cost activity will occur in fiscal year 2025 to ensure policy is followed.
Criteria: Allowable Costs/Activites Allowed. The District is required to report allowable costs/activities allowed based on the grant, the grant budget and for the period of the grant. In general, grantees are not allowed to begin an activity or obligate or expend funds that will be charged to a state or federal grant until a substantially approvable initial application (see 34 CFR 76.708) has been received at ISBE. At a minimum, a “substantially approvable application” is a complete grant application and supporting budget detail with assurances. Grantees that submit a state or federal initial application prior to the program begin date (usually July 1) will be granted an appropriate project begin date for the following fiscal year unless state appropriation authority has not been approved. Grantees that submit a state or federal initial application after July 1 will be assigned a project begin date no earlier than when the initial application was received at ISBE or the program begin date (whichever is later). Condition: It was noted that the Title I grant application was submitted late, establishing a grant start date of 12/19/23. Due to the late start date, any expenditures that were obligated or services that were provided prior to the submittal date were not grant allowable costs. The expenditure reports that were submitted and subsequently reimbursed included costs from 7/1/23 - 12/18/23, which occured prior to the grant start date. Per 2 CFR 200.403(h) and guidelines established above, costs must be incurred during the approved budget period. Questioned Costs: There are $114,912 questioned costs associated with this grant. Context: The Title I grant application was submitted late, establishing a grant start date of 12/19/23. The expenditure report submitted on 3/8/24 for expenditures through that date, included salaries, benefits, purchased services, and supplies that occurred before the grant start date of 12/19/23. There are seven employees who are paid through the grant, and approximately 7 paychecks and benefits from July through the first December paycheck, totaling $99,364.87, were allocated and claimed in the 3/8/24 expenditure report under Instruction Salaries. There were two expenditures claimed in Instruction Supplies in the 3/8/24 expenditure report that were purchased in August 2023, totaling $497.09. There was one expenditure claimed in Other Support Services Supplies in the 3/8/24 expenditure report that was purchased in August 2023, totaling $1,512.50. There were 8 expenditures claimed in Assessment & Testing Purchased Services in the 3/31/24 expenditure report that were all purchased in July 2023, totaling $13,537.50. This sum of these expenditures claimed represent a total questioned costs of $114,911.96. Effect: The District mistakenly claimed $114,912 of unallowable expenses. There is an increased risk that these funds will be subject to repayment as they were incorrectly submitted for reimbursement. Cause: This was an oversight by management personnel in the District when submitting the first expenditure report for the grant. The District mistakenly included expenses occuring before the application start-date. Recommendation: The District should take steps to submit grant applications in a timely manner to ensure that they are able to claim all expenses as budgeted. The District should ensure that expenditure reports filed in grants with begin dates occuring after the start of the fiscal year does not include expenses occuring before the begin date, including reconciling general ledger records against the expenditure reports prior to submission. Management's Response: The District will take steps to submit grant applications in a timely manner. The District will take all necessary steps to reconcile the general ledger to the expenditure reports to ensure ineligible costs are not included on the expenditure report.
Criteria: Allowable Costs/Activites Allowed. The District is required to report allowable costs/activities allowed based on the grant, the grant budget and for the period of the grant. In general, grantees are not allowed to begin an activity or obligate or expend funds that will be charged to a state or federal grant until a substantially approvable initial application (see 34 CFR 76.708) has been received at ISBE. At a minimum, a “substantially approvable application” is a complete grant application and supporting budget detail with assurances. Grantees that submit a state or federal initial application prior to the program begin date (usually July 1) will be granted an appropriate project begin date for the following fiscal year unless state appropriation authority has not been approved. Grantees that submit a state or federal initial application after July 1 will be assigned a project begin date no earlier than when the initial application was received at ISBE or the program begin date (whichever is later). Condition: It was noted that the IDEA Preschool Flowthrough grant application was submitted late, establishing a grant start date of 12/19/23. Due to the late start date, any expenditures that were obligated or services that were provided prior to the submittal date were not grant allowable costs. The expenditure reports that were submitted and subsequently reimbursed included costs from 7/1/23 - 12/18/23, which occured prior to the grant start date. Per 2 CFR 200.403(h) and guidelines established above, costs must be incurred during the approved budget period. Questioned Costs: There are $4,646 questioned costs associated with this grant. Context: The IDEA Preschool Flowthrough grant application was submitted late, establishing a grant start date of 12/19/23. The expenditure report submitted 12/31/23 for expenditures through that date, included purchased services that occurred before the grant start date of 12/19/23. There were 2 expenditures claimed in Payments to Other Governmental Unit Purchased Services in the 12/19/23 expenditure report that were all purchased in September and November 2023, totaling $4,646, which represent the total questioned costs of for the grant years. Effect: The District mistakenly claimed $4,646 of unallowable expenses. There is an increased risk that these funds will be subject to repayment as they were incorrectly submitted for reimbursement. Cause: This was an oversight by management personnel in the District when submitting the first expenditure report for the grant. The District mistakenly included expenses occuring before the application start-date. Recommendation: The District should take steps to submit grant applications in a timely manner to ensure that they are able to claim all expenses as budgeted. The District should ensure that expenditure reports filed in grants with begin dates occuring after the start of the fiscal year does not include expenses occuring before the begin date, including reconciling general ledger records against the expenditure reports prior to submission. Management's Response: The District will take steps to submit grant applications in a timely manner. The District will take all necessary steps to reconcile the general ledger to the expenditure reports to ensure ineligible costs are not included on the expenditure report.
Item 2024-008: Allowable Costs Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; U.S. Department of Treasury Program: COVID-19—HOME Investment Partnerships Program, American Rescue Plan (ALN 14.239); COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ALN 21.023); COVID-19—Homeowner Assistance Fund Program (ALN 21.026) Pass-through Entity: None Federal Assistance Identification Number or Pass-Through Number: None Federal Award Year: Year ended June 30, 2024 Type of Finding: Compliance Finding and Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria: The Agency is required to comply with 2 CFR 200.502 which states, “The determination of when a Federal award is expended must be based on when the activity related to the Federal award occurs.” The Agency is also required to comply with 2 CFR 200.403 which indicates that allowable costs must be determined in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP). Appendix VII to 2 CFR 200—State/Local Government and Indian Tribe-Wide Central Service Cost Allocation Plans 2 states, “Indirect cost rates will be reviewed, negotiated, and approved by the cognizant agency on a timely basis. Once a rate has been agreed upon, it will be accepted and used by all Federal agencies unless prohibited or limited by statute. Where a Federal awarding agency has reason to believe that special operating factors affecting its Federal awards necessitate special indirect cost rates, the funding agency will, prior to the time the rates are negotiated, notify the cognizant agency for indirect costs.” Condition: We noted the Agency charged $119,169 of direct and indirect costs from fiscal year 2021 and 2022, and direct costs from fiscal year 2023 to COVID-19—HOME Investment Partnerships Program, American Rescue Plan (ALN 14.239) in fiscal year 2024. We noted the Agency charged $426,504 of direct costs from fiscal year 2021 through 2023 to COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ALN 21.023). We noted the Agency charged $1,153,427 of direct costs from fiscal year 2021 through 2023 to COVID-19—Homeowner Assistance Fund Program (ALN 21.026) in fiscal year 2024. These costs do not meet the allowable cost criteria as they were not determined in accordance with GAAP which requires expenses to be recorded when incurred. The Agency had an approved indirect cost rate which allowed them to charge the indirect costs in those previous fiscal years. Cause: The Agency incorrectly charged direct and indirect costs in fiscal year 2024 that were incurred in previous fiscal years for the programs noted above. Effect: The Agency inappropriately charged the above federal programs for direct and indirect costs in fiscal year 2024. During the audit, the Agency reevaluated its direct and indirect costs incurred in previous years that were charged in fiscal year 2024. The Agency identified additional direct and indirect costs incurred in fiscal year 2024 that were eligible to be charged to ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023, and ALN 21.026 which were not previously charged to the program to offset a portion of the errors identified above. This resulted in the expenditures charged to ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023, and ALN 21.026 being overstated by $99,928, $0, and $403,795, respectively. Questioned Costs: ALN 14.239 – $119,169; ALN 21.023 – $426,504; ALN 21.026 – $1,153,427; Total – $1,699,100 Context: The Agency’s expenditures of federal awards charged to ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023 and ALN 21.026 were overstated $119,169, $426,504, and $1,153,427, respectively. During the audit, the Agency identified additional direct and indirect costs incurred in fiscal year 2024 that were eligible to be charged to ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023, and ALN 21.026 which were not previously charged to the program which resulted in the expenditures charged to ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023, and ALN 21.026 being overstated by $99,928, $0, and $403,795, respectively. The total expenditures for ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023, and ALN 21.026 are $81,364,920, $41,673,294, and $14,339,711, respectively. Repeat Finding?: No Recommendation: The Agency should charge direct and indirect costs to federal programs in the year the costs are incurred and using its approved indirect cost rate. Views of responsible officials of the auditee: We agree with the above finding and our response is included in the corrective action plan.
Item 2024-008: Allowable Costs Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; U.S. Department of Treasury Program: COVID-19—HOME Investment Partnerships Program, American Rescue Plan (ALN 14.239); COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ALN 21.023); COVID-19—Homeowner Assistance Fund Program (ALN 21.026) Pass-through Entity: None Federal Assistance Identification Number or Pass-Through Number: None Federal Award Year: Year ended June 30, 2024 Type of Finding: Compliance Finding and Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria: The Agency is required to comply with 2 CFR 200.502 which states, “The determination of when a Federal award is expended must be based on when the activity related to the Federal award occurs.” The Agency is also required to comply with 2 CFR 200.403 which indicates that allowable costs must be determined in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP). Appendix VII to 2 CFR 200—State/Local Government and Indian Tribe-Wide Central Service Cost Allocation Plans 2 states, “Indirect cost rates will be reviewed, negotiated, and approved by the cognizant agency on a timely basis. Once a rate has been agreed upon, it will be accepted and used by all Federal agencies unless prohibited or limited by statute. Where a Federal awarding agency has reason to believe that special operating factors affecting its Federal awards necessitate special indirect cost rates, the funding agency will, prior to the time the rates are negotiated, notify the cognizant agency for indirect costs.” Condition: We noted the Agency charged $119,169 of direct and indirect costs from fiscal year 2021 and 2022, and direct costs from fiscal year 2023 to COVID-19—HOME Investment Partnerships Program, American Rescue Plan (ALN 14.239) in fiscal year 2024. We noted the Agency charged $426,504 of direct costs from fiscal year 2021 through 2023 to COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ALN 21.023). We noted the Agency charged $1,153,427 of direct costs from fiscal year 2021 through 2023 to COVID-19—Homeowner Assistance Fund Program (ALN 21.026) in fiscal year 2024. These costs do not meet the allowable cost criteria as they were not determined in accordance with GAAP which requires expenses to be recorded when incurred. The Agency had an approved indirect cost rate which allowed them to charge the indirect costs in those previous fiscal years. Cause: The Agency incorrectly charged direct and indirect costs in fiscal year 2024 that were incurred in previous fiscal years for the programs noted above. Effect: The Agency inappropriately charged the above federal programs for direct and indirect costs in fiscal year 2024. During the audit, the Agency reevaluated its direct and indirect costs incurred in previous years that were charged in fiscal year 2024. The Agency identified additional direct and indirect costs incurred in fiscal year 2024 that were eligible to be charged to ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023, and ALN 21.026 which were not previously charged to the program to offset a portion of the errors identified above. This resulted in the expenditures charged to ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023, and ALN 21.026 being overstated by $99,928, $0, and $403,795, respectively. Questioned Costs: ALN 14.239 – $119,169; ALN 21.023 – $426,504; ALN 21.026 – $1,153,427; Total – $1,699,100 Context: The Agency’s expenditures of federal awards charged to ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023 and ALN 21.026 were overstated $119,169, $426,504, and $1,153,427, respectively. During the audit, the Agency identified additional direct and indirect costs incurred in fiscal year 2024 that were eligible to be charged to ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023, and ALN 21.026 which were not previously charged to the program which resulted in the expenditures charged to ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023, and ALN 21.026 being overstated by $99,928, $0, and $403,795, respectively. The total expenditures for ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023, and ALN 21.026 are $81,364,920, $41,673,294, and $14,339,711, respectively. Repeat Finding?: No Recommendation: The Agency should charge direct and indirect costs to federal programs in the year the costs are incurred and using its approved indirect cost rate. Views of responsible officials of the auditee: We agree with the above finding and our response is included in the corrective action plan.
Item 2024-008: Allowable Costs Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; U.S. Department of Treasury Program: COVID-19—HOME Investment Partnerships Program, American Rescue Plan (ALN 14.239); COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ALN 21.023); COVID-19—Homeowner Assistance Fund Program (ALN 21.026) Pass-through Entity: None Federal Assistance Identification Number or Pass-Through Number: None Federal Award Year: Year ended June 30, 2024 Type of Finding: Compliance Finding and Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria: The Agency is required to comply with 2 CFR 200.502 which states, “The determination of when a Federal award is expended must be based on when the activity related to the Federal award occurs.” The Agency is also required to comply with 2 CFR 200.403 which indicates that allowable costs must be determined in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP). Appendix VII to 2 CFR 200—State/Local Government and Indian Tribe-Wide Central Service Cost Allocation Plans 2 states, “Indirect cost rates will be reviewed, negotiated, and approved by the cognizant agency on a timely basis. Once a rate has been agreed upon, it will be accepted and used by all Federal agencies unless prohibited or limited by statute. Where a Federal awarding agency has reason to believe that special operating factors affecting its Federal awards necessitate special indirect cost rates, the funding agency will, prior to the time the rates are negotiated, notify the cognizant agency for indirect costs.” Condition: We noted the Agency charged $119,169 of direct and indirect costs from fiscal year 2021 and 2022, and direct costs from fiscal year 2023 to COVID-19—HOME Investment Partnerships Program, American Rescue Plan (ALN 14.239) in fiscal year 2024. We noted the Agency charged $426,504 of direct costs from fiscal year 2021 through 2023 to COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ALN 21.023). We noted the Agency charged $1,153,427 of direct costs from fiscal year 2021 through 2023 to COVID-19—Homeowner Assistance Fund Program (ALN 21.026) in fiscal year 2024. These costs do not meet the allowable cost criteria as they were not determined in accordance with GAAP which requires expenses to be recorded when incurred. The Agency had an approved indirect cost rate which allowed them to charge the indirect costs in those previous fiscal years. Cause: The Agency incorrectly charged direct and indirect costs in fiscal year 2024 that were incurred in previous fiscal years for the programs noted above. Effect: The Agency inappropriately charged the above federal programs for direct and indirect costs in fiscal year 2024. During the audit, the Agency reevaluated its direct and indirect costs incurred in previous years that were charged in fiscal year 2024. The Agency identified additional direct and indirect costs incurred in fiscal year 2024 that were eligible to be charged to ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023, and ALN 21.026 which were not previously charged to the program to offset a portion of the errors identified above. This resulted in the expenditures charged to ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023, and ALN 21.026 being overstated by $99,928, $0, and $403,795, respectively. Questioned Costs: ALN 14.239 – $119,169; ALN 21.023 – $426,504; ALN 21.026 – $1,153,427; Total – $1,699,100 Context: The Agency’s expenditures of federal awards charged to ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023 and ALN 21.026 were overstated $119,169, $426,504, and $1,153,427, respectively. During the audit, the Agency identified additional direct and indirect costs incurred in fiscal year 2024 that were eligible to be charged to ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023, and ALN 21.026 which were not previously charged to the program which resulted in the expenditures charged to ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023, and ALN 21.026 being overstated by $99,928, $0, and $403,795, respectively. The total expenditures for ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023, and ALN 21.026 are $81,364,920, $41,673,294, and $14,339,711, respectively. Repeat Finding?: No Recommendation: The Agency should charge direct and indirect costs to federal programs in the year the costs are incurred and using its approved indirect cost rate. Views of responsible officials of the auditee: We agree with the above finding and our response is included in the corrective action plan.
Item 2024-008: Allowable Costs Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development; U.S. Department of Treasury Program: COVID-19—HOME Investment Partnerships Program, American Rescue Plan (ALN 14.239); COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ALN 21.023); COVID-19—Homeowner Assistance Fund Program (ALN 21.026) Pass-through Entity: None Federal Assistance Identification Number or Pass-Through Number: None Federal Award Year: Year ended June 30, 2024 Type of Finding: Compliance Finding and Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria: The Agency is required to comply with 2 CFR 200.502 which states, “The determination of when a Federal award is expended must be based on when the activity related to the Federal award occurs.” The Agency is also required to comply with 2 CFR 200.403 which indicates that allowable costs must be determined in accordance with accounting principles generally accepted in the United States of America (GAAP). Appendix VII to 2 CFR 200—State/Local Government and Indian Tribe-Wide Central Service Cost Allocation Plans 2 states, “Indirect cost rates will be reviewed, negotiated, and approved by the cognizant agency on a timely basis. Once a rate has been agreed upon, it will be accepted and used by all Federal agencies unless prohibited or limited by statute. Where a Federal awarding agency has reason to believe that special operating factors affecting its Federal awards necessitate special indirect cost rates, the funding agency will, prior to the time the rates are negotiated, notify the cognizant agency for indirect costs.” Condition: We noted the Agency charged $119,169 of direct and indirect costs from fiscal year 2021 and 2022, and direct costs from fiscal year 2023 to COVID-19—HOME Investment Partnerships Program, American Rescue Plan (ALN 14.239) in fiscal year 2024. We noted the Agency charged $426,504 of direct costs from fiscal year 2021 through 2023 to COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance (ALN 21.023). We noted the Agency charged $1,153,427 of direct costs from fiscal year 2021 through 2023 to COVID-19—Homeowner Assistance Fund Program (ALN 21.026) in fiscal year 2024. These costs do not meet the allowable cost criteria as they were not determined in accordance with GAAP which requires expenses to be recorded when incurred. The Agency had an approved indirect cost rate which allowed them to charge the indirect costs in those previous fiscal years. Cause: The Agency incorrectly charged direct and indirect costs in fiscal year 2024 that were incurred in previous fiscal years for the programs noted above. Effect: The Agency inappropriately charged the above federal programs for direct and indirect costs in fiscal year 2024. During the audit, the Agency reevaluated its direct and indirect costs incurred in previous years that were charged in fiscal year 2024. The Agency identified additional direct and indirect costs incurred in fiscal year 2024 that were eligible to be charged to ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023, and ALN 21.026 which were not previously charged to the program to offset a portion of the errors identified above. This resulted in the expenditures charged to ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023, and ALN 21.026 being overstated by $99,928, $0, and $403,795, respectively. Questioned Costs: ALN 14.239 – $119,169; ALN 21.023 – $426,504; ALN 21.026 – $1,153,427; Total – $1,699,100 Context: The Agency’s expenditures of federal awards charged to ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023 and ALN 21.026 were overstated $119,169, $426,504, and $1,153,427, respectively. During the audit, the Agency identified additional direct and indirect costs incurred in fiscal year 2024 that were eligible to be charged to ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023, and ALN 21.026 which were not previously charged to the program which resulted in the expenditures charged to ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023, and ALN 21.026 being overstated by $99,928, $0, and $403,795, respectively. The total expenditures for ALN 14.239, ALN 21.023, and ALN 21.026 are $81,364,920, $41,673,294, and $14,339,711, respectively. Repeat Finding?: No Recommendation: The Agency should charge direct and indirect costs to federal programs in the year the costs are incurred and using its approved indirect cost rate. Views of responsible officials of the auditee: We agree with the above finding and our response is included in the corrective action plan.
2024–003 ALLOWABILITY‐PAYROLL Federal Program Information: Federal Agency and Program Name Assistance Listing # U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants 14.218 Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 requires that a 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 and the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 2 CFR 200.430(g)(1) states, “Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the recipient or subrecipient; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the recipient or subrecipient, not exceeding 100 percent of compensated activities (for IHEs, this is the IBS); (iv) Encompass federally‐assisted and all other activities compensated by the recipient or subrecipient on an integrated basis but may include the use of subsidiary records as defined in the recipient's or subrecipient's written policy; (v) Comply with the established accounting policies and procedures of the recipient or subrecipient (See paragraph (i)(1)(ii) of this section for treatment of incidental work for IHEs.); and (vi) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non‐Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. 2 CFR 200.403 indicates that costs must “be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally‐financed and other activities of the non‐Federal entity” and must “be adequately documented”. Condition: For 6 of the 17 payroll transactions selected for testing the individual’s hourly rate of pay charged to the federal program was not consistent with actual pay rates. Documentation supporting the difference in rate paid and rate reimbursed from the federal program was not available. Questioned Costs: $69 Context: Total federal expenditures for the Community Development Block Grant program were $3,436,560. The 6 payroll transactions represent $8,906 of the total payroll transactions tested of $24,915 for the program. Total payroll charged to the grant was $292,826. Cause: The City does not have adequate internal controls and policies and procedures in place to ensure that the payroll amounts reimbursed from the federal funds correspond to the payroll rates in the underlying payroll accounting records. Effect: The City is not be in compliance with federal statues, regulations, and terms of the conditions of the federal award. Expenditures were paid that are not allowable. The Authority may not identify noncompliance with federal statues, regulations, and terms of the conditions of the federal award including allowability. Recommendation: We recommend that City enhance internal controls to ensure that expenditures charged to the federal awards are properly reviewed and supported. Views of Responsible Officials: Management acknowledges the finding. See corrective action plan.
2024–003 ALLOWABILITY‐PAYROLL Federal Program Information: Federal Agency and Program Name Assistance Listing # U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants 14.218 Criteria: 2 CFR 200.303 requires that a 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 and the “Internal Control Integrated Framework”, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 2 CFR 200.430(g)(1) states, “Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i) Be supported by a system of internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii) Be incorporated into the official records of the recipient or subrecipient; (iii) Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the recipient or subrecipient, not exceeding 100 percent of compensated activities (for IHEs, this is the IBS); (iv) Encompass federally‐assisted and all other activities compensated by the recipient or subrecipient on an integrated basis but may include the use of subsidiary records as defined in the recipient's or subrecipient's written policy; (v) Comply with the established accounting policies and procedures of the recipient or subrecipient (See paragraph (i)(1)(ii) of this section for treatment of incidental work for IHEs.); and (vi) Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non‐Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. 2 CFR 200.403 indicates that costs must “be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally‐financed and other activities of the non‐Federal entity” and must “be adequately documented”. Condition: For 6 of the 17 payroll transactions selected for testing the individual’s hourly rate of pay charged to the federal program was not consistent with actual pay rates. Documentation supporting the difference in rate paid and rate reimbursed from the federal program was not available. Questioned Costs: $69 Context: Total federal expenditures for the Community Development Block Grant program were $3,436,560. The 6 payroll transactions represent $8,906 of the total payroll transactions tested of $24,915 for the program. Total payroll charged to the grant was $292,826. Cause: The City does not have adequate internal controls and policies and procedures in place to ensure that the payroll amounts reimbursed from the federal funds correspond to the payroll rates in the underlying payroll accounting records. Effect: The City is not be in compliance with federal statues, regulations, and terms of the conditions of the federal award. Expenditures were paid that are not allowable. The Authority may not identify noncompliance with federal statues, regulations, and terms of the conditions of the federal award including allowability. Recommendation: We recommend that City enhance internal controls to ensure that expenditures charged to the federal awards are properly reviewed and supported. Views of Responsible Officials: Management acknowledges the finding. See corrective action plan.
Finding 2024-001: Procurement Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through agency: Pennsylvania Department of Education Assistance Listing Number: 84.425 Education Stabilization Fund; 84.027 IDEA Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that non-federal entities must have and use documented procurement procedures consistent with laws and regulations and the standards for the acquisition of property or services under a federal award or subaward in accordance with 2 CFR 200.318. The Uniform Guidance requires that non-federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement and adherence to related compliance requirements. Records should include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. 2 CFR 200.318(i) Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply 2 CFR 200.320(c): The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold: The item is available only from a single source; The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non-Federal entity; or After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. adequately document costs in accordance with 2 CFR 200.403(g). The Non-Federal entity must perform a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement action in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold including contract modifications. The method and degree of analysis is dependent on the facts surrounding the particular procurement situation, but as a starting point, the non-Federal entity must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. 2 CFR 200.324(a). Per PDE and Pennsylvania Bulletin, the Entity must perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Condition: The District did not follow the appropriate procedures to comply with Uniform Grant Guidance. During our audits and PDE’s monitoring review completed in fiscal year 2023-2024, the ESSER Monitoring Team and we noted the following Procurement Findings: The School District was unable to provide purchase orders for several services purchased with Federal funds. The School District did not document its rationale for noncompetitive procurement. The School District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Procurement files for 2 vendors, which exceed $10,000 but not $22,500 for goods and $10,000 but not $250,000 for services, did not have the accompanying three price or rate quotations. The School District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Vendor contracts did not contain the necessary contract provisions The ESSER Monitoring Team was unable to obtain and review sufficient documentation to verify that the procurement was competitively performed for 1 vendor, such as proof of advertisement, request for proposal, bid evaluation, and award letter for procurement of the following vendor Context: During testing, it was noted that the District had entered into a lease agreement in 2017 to acquire computer equipment. The equipment was acquired through COSTARS, a cooperative purchasing program. While purchases through COSTARS meet the cooperative purchase requirement for local government purchasing under 62 Pa.C.S. section 1902, they do not meet the more stringent requirements of the Uniform Grant Guidance. Subsequently, the District decided to budget for and pay for this lease agreement in the 2021-2022 school year under the Education Stabilization Fund. In using federal funds to pay for the lease agreement, the District inadvertently did not follow its procurement policy. While the school district developed a plan to correct these procedures, it was not fully implemented until the 2023-2024 school year. Cause: Non-compliance with Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements. Effect: The District did not follow its procurement policy and ultimately did not comply with the standards of the Uniform Grant Guidance. Questioned Cost: None Identification of Repeat Finding: Yes Recommendation: The District must implement procedures to fully comply with Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements. View of Responsible Officials: The District will require all payments to have either a purchase order or request for payment form completed. The Accounts Payable Coordinator is responsible for ensuring the form is signed for all disbursements. For the particular item cited by our monitors the Superintendent and Business Manager signed off on the invoice instead of a request for payment form. The District Accountant / Business Office Manager discussed with the Accounts Payable Coordinator that going forward this is insufficient. All payments must have either a purchase order or request for payment form. The District Accountant / Business Office Manager reviews backup documentation for check disbursements. During their review if any payments are discovered to be missing a purchase order or request for payment form, he will notify the Accounts Payable Coordinator to complete the form. This is effective immediately. The District has also reviewed the applicable Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements and has developed an electronic procurement process that all staff member making the purchase with federal funds, must complete a form prior to the procurement being made. Then the Business Manager approves the form. There is a box to check if the procurement is a sole source. If this is checked the Business Manager will require justification. This process was presented by the Business Office to Leadership Personnel on 5/9/24 and is effective now.
Finding 2024-001: Procurement Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through agency: Pennsylvania Department of Education Assistance Listing Number: 84.425 Education Stabilization Fund; 84.027 IDEA Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that non-federal entities must have and use documented procurement procedures consistent with laws and regulations and the standards for the acquisition of property or services under a federal award or subaward in accordance with 2 CFR 200.318. The Uniform Guidance requires that non-federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement and adherence to related compliance requirements. Records should include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. 2 CFR 200.318(i) Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply 2 CFR 200.320(c): The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold: The item is available only from a single source; The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non-Federal entity; or After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. adequately document costs in accordance with 2 CFR 200.403(g). The Non-Federal entity must perform a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement action in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold including contract modifications. The method and degree of analysis is dependent on the facts surrounding the particular procurement situation, but as a starting point, the non-Federal entity must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. 2 CFR 200.324(a). Per PDE and Pennsylvania Bulletin, the Entity must perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Condition: The District did not follow the appropriate procedures to comply with Uniform Grant Guidance. During our audits and PDE’s monitoring review completed in fiscal year 2023-2024, the ESSER Monitoring Team and we noted the following Procurement Findings: The School District was unable to provide purchase orders for several services purchased with Federal funds. The School District did not document its rationale for noncompetitive procurement. The School District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Procurement files for 2 vendors, which exceed $10,000 but not $22,500 for goods and $10,000 but not $250,000 for services, did not have the accompanying three price or rate quotations. The School District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Vendor contracts did not contain the necessary contract provisions The ESSER Monitoring Team was unable to obtain and review sufficient documentation to verify that the procurement was competitively performed for 1 vendor, such as proof of advertisement, request for proposal, bid evaluation, and award letter for procurement of the following vendor Context: During testing, it was noted that the District had entered into a lease agreement in 2017 to acquire computer equipment. The equipment was acquired through COSTARS, a cooperative purchasing program. While purchases through COSTARS meet the cooperative purchase requirement for local government purchasing under 62 Pa.C.S. section 1902, they do not meet the more stringent requirements of the Uniform Grant Guidance. Subsequently, the District decided to budget for and pay for this lease agreement in the 2021-2022 school year under the Education Stabilization Fund. In using federal funds to pay for the lease agreement, the District inadvertently did not follow its procurement policy. While the school district developed a plan to correct these procedures, it was not fully implemented until the 2023-2024 school year. Cause: Non-compliance with Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements. Effect: The District did not follow its procurement policy and ultimately did not comply with the standards of the Uniform Grant Guidance. Questioned Cost: None Identification of Repeat Finding: Yes Recommendation: The District must implement procedures to fully comply with Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements. View of Responsible Officials: The District will require all payments to have either a purchase order or request for payment form completed. The Accounts Payable Coordinator is responsible for ensuring the form is signed for all disbursements. For the particular item cited by our monitors the Superintendent and Business Manager signed off on the invoice instead of a request for payment form. The District Accountant / Business Office Manager discussed with the Accounts Payable Coordinator that going forward this is insufficient. All payments must have either a purchase order or request for payment form. The District Accountant / Business Office Manager reviews backup documentation for check disbursements. During their review if any payments are discovered to be missing a purchase order or request for payment form, he will notify the Accounts Payable Coordinator to complete the form. This is effective immediately. The District has also reviewed the applicable Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements and has developed an electronic procurement process that all staff member making the purchase with federal funds, must complete a form prior to the procurement being made. Then the Business Manager approves the form. There is a box to check if the procurement is a sole source. If this is checked the Business Manager will require justification. This process was presented by the Business Office to Leadership Personnel on 5/9/24 and is effective now.
Finding 2024-001: Procurement Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through agency: Pennsylvania Department of Education Assistance Listing Number: 84.425 Education Stabilization Fund; 84.027 IDEA Criteria: The Uniform Guidance requires that non-federal entities must have and use documented procurement procedures consistent with laws and regulations and the standards for the acquisition of property or services under a federal award or subaward in accordance with 2 CFR 200.318. The Uniform Guidance requires that non-federal entity must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement and adherence to related compliance requirements. Records should include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. 2 CFR 200.318(i) Noncompetitive procurement can only be awarded if one or more of the following circumstances apply 2 CFR 200.320(c): The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold: The item is available only from a single source; The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non-Federal entity; or After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. adequately document costs in accordance with 2 CFR 200.403(g). The Non-Federal entity must perform a cost or price analysis in connection with every procurement action in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold including contract modifications. The method and degree of analysis is dependent on the facts surrounding the particular procurement situation, but as a starting point, the non-Federal entity must make independent estimates before receiving bids or proposals. 2 CFR 200.324(a). Per PDE and Pennsylvania Bulletin, the Entity must perform a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Condition: The District did not follow the appropriate procedures to comply with Uniform Grant Guidance. During our audits and PDE’s monitoring review completed in fiscal year 2023-2024, the ESSER Monitoring Team and we noted the following Procurement Findings: The School District was unable to provide purchase orders for several services purchased with Federal funds. The School District did not document its rationale for noncompetitive procurement. The School District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Procurement files for 2 vendors, which exceed $10,000 but not $22,500 for goods and $10,000 but not $250,000 for services, did not have the accompanying three price or rate quotations. The School District did not conduct a cost or price analysis for purchases in excess of the Simplified Acquisition Threshold of $250,000. Vendor contracts did not contain the necessary contract provisions The ESSER Monitoring Team was unable to obtain and review sufficient documentation to verify that the procurement was competitively performed for 1 vendor, such as proof of advertisement, request for proposal, bid evaluation, and award letter for procurement of the following vendor Context: During testing, it was noted that the District had entered into a lease agreement in 2017 to acquire computer equipment. The equipment was acquired through COSTARS, a cooperative purchasing program. While purchases through COSTARS meet the cooperative purchase requirement for local government purchasing under 62 Pa.C.S. section 1902, they do not meet the more stringent requirements of the Uniform Grant Guidance. Subsequently, the District decided to budget for and pay for this lease agreement in the 2021-2022 school year under the Education Stabilization Fund. In using federal funds to pay for the lease agreement, the District inadvertently did not follow its procurement policy. While the school district developed a plan to correct these procedures, it was not fully implemented until the 2023-2024 school year. Cause: Non-compliance with Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements. Effect: The District did not follow its procurement policy and ultimately did not comply with the standards of the Uniform Grant Guidance. Questioned Cost: None Identification of Repeat Finding: Yes Recommendation: The District must implement procedures to fully comply with Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements. View of Responsible Officials: The District will require all payments to have either a purchase order or request for payment form completed. The Accounts Payable Coordinator is responsible for ensuring the form is signed for all disbursements. For the particular item cited by our monitors the Superintendent and Business Manager signed off on the invoice instead of a request for payment form. The District Accountant / Business Office Manager discussed with the Accounts Payable Coordinator that going forward this is insufficient. All payments must have either a purchase order or request for payment form. The District Accountant / Business Office Manager reviews backup documentation for check disbursements. During their review if any payments are discovered to be missing a purchase order or request for payment form, he will notify the Accounts Payable Coordinator to complete the form. This is effective immediately. The District has also reviewed the applicable Uniform Guidance Procurement requirements and has developed an electronic procurement process that all staff member making the purchase with federal funds, must complete a form prior to the procurement being made. Then the Business Manager approves the form. There is a box to check if the procurement is a sole source. If this is checked the Business Manager will require justification. This process was presented by the Business Office to Leadership Personnel on 5/9/24 and is effective now.