Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
Assistance Listings number and name: 21.023 COVID-19 - Emergency Rental Assistance Program Award numbers and years: ERA-2101070596, January 8, 2021 through September 30, 2022; ERA2-0165, May 10, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed, allowable costs/cost principles, and eligibility Questioned costs: $36,945 Assistance Listings number and name: 21.027 COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Award number and year: None Federal agency: U.S. Department of the Treasury Compliance requirements: Activities allowed or unallowed and allowable costs/cost principles Questioned costs: $38,169 Total questioned costs: $75,114 Condition—Contrary to federal regulations and its policies and procedures, the Department of Economic Security—Division of Community Assistance and Development (Division) made unallowable benefits payments totaling $75,114 during fiscal year 2023 to rental assistance program applicants for the Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) and Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) federal programs.1 Specifically, for 10 of 50 CSLFRF and 10 of 65 ERAP benefit payments tested, we found that the Division made unallowable benefits payments of $38,169 for CSLFRF and $36,945 for ERAP, to or on behalf of ineligible program applicants or those that lacked required eligibility documentation and for other inappropriate costs, as follows: • The Division inappropriately paid $43,642 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 ineligible program applicants, including: o $42,993 paid to or on behalf of 7 program applicants who did not reside in an eligible Maricopa County service area at the time of application ($30,618 for 5 ERAP program applicants and $12,375 for 2 CSLFRF applicants). o $649 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP program applicant whose income exceeded allowable program limits. • The Division inappropriately paid $17,655 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 8 program applicants without obtaining required documentation to support they were eligible to receive them, including: o $12,567 paid to or on behalf of 6 CSLFRF program applicants without required proof of income, a signed lease agreement, and other documentation supporting household size and the reimbursement of late penalties and fees related to rent and/or utility account bills. o $5,088 paid to or on behalf of 2 ERAP program applicants without a required lease agreement listing the applicants. • The Division inappropriately paid $13,817 of benefit payments to or on behalf of 4 program applicants, including: o $13,731 paid to or on behalf of 3 participants for rental arrears—rent not paid by the date specified in the lease agreement—payments exceeding the allowable one-time, lump sum payments ($13,227 for 2 CSLFRF participants and $504 for 1 ERAP participant). o $86 paid to or on behalf of 1 ERAP applicant for utility services the Division previously paid. Effect—The Division’s making unallowable benefits payments to ineligible program applicants or without required documentation increases the risk that the program applicants received utility and rental payments for which they were not entitled. Also, the Division’s paying for inappropriate costs spent inconsistent with program requirements increases the risk that those who were intended to benefit from the program may not have received all the benefits they otherwise would have received. Consequently, the Division may be required to return these monies to the federal agency in accordance with federal requirements.2 During fiscal year 2023, the Division paid $193.7 million in benefit payments to or on behalf of program applicants requesting emergency rental and utility assistance for these 2 federal programs, as illustrated in the figure below, and is at risk that more of its benefit payment expenditures are inappropriate than those identified in our sample. Benefit payments expenditures (in millions) Total program expenditures (in millions) Percent of benefit payments expenditures to total program expenditures ERAP $162.8 $194.7 83.6% CSLFRF $30.9 $379.5 8.1% Totals for ERAP and CSLFRF $193.7 $574.2 33.7% Cause—Division management reported that personnel responsible for evaluating program applications and determining program applicant’s eligibility and allowability of related costs did not have time to perform thorough evaluations, including making appropriate eligibility determinations, obtaining required documentation, or ensuring costs were allowable, because of the large quantity of program applications. Further, the Division failed to identify the program evaluation errors during post-reviews of eligibility determinations because the checklist Division personnel used lacked detailed guidance for verifying that the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and were supported by required documentation. Criteria—Federal regulations require costs to be reasonable and adequately documented to be allowable under federal awards, and the Division’s written policies and procedures require certain documentation to support eligibility requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income.3,4,5 Specifically, Division policy requires a program application evaluation to ensure complete and reasonable documentation is obtained including lease agreements; any bills related to utility accounts; and proof of income, household size, eligible service area residency, and risk of homelessness or housing instability. Also, the Division’s policies prohibit incomplete applications to be acted upon until applicants provide the required information and documentation to complete their applications. Further, federal regulation requires establishing and maintaining effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that federal programs are being managed in compliance with all applicable laws, regulations, and award terms (2 CFR §200.303). Recommendations—The Division should: 1. Ensure benefit payments are for allowable costs paid to or on behalf of eligible program applicants. 2. Follow existing policies and procedures to obtain required documentation to support requirements related to where the applicant lives and their income to ensure program applicants are eligible to receive benefit payments. 3. Allocate sufficient staffing resources to perform a thorough evaluation of program benefits applications and provide training on eligibility requirements and allowable benefit payments. 4. Update the checklist Division personnel use to perform a post-review of eligibility determinations to include detailed guidance for verifying the determinations aligned with the Division’s written policies and procedures and supported by adequate documentation. The State’s corrective action plan at the end of this report includes the views and planned corrective action of its responsible officials. We are not required to audit and have not audited these responses and planned corrective actions and therefore provide no assurances as to their accuracy. 1 The Arizona Department of Economic Security’s Emergency Rental Assistance Program (ERAP) was established by Section 501 of Title V, Division N, of the Consolidated Appropriations Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 116-260) in response to the coronavirus pandemic and to provide financial relief to help keep individuals who rent housing in their homes and provide financial assistance to landlords who rely on rental income. The initial program is referred to as ERAP 1. ERAP 2 was established by Sec. 3201 of Title III, Subtitle B, of the American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 (Public Law No. 117-2). Further, the Arizona Department of Economic Security’s ERAP was extended through the federal Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds, an American Rescue Plan Act of 2021 program (Public Law 117-2), as administered by the Office of the Governor. The Department of Economic Security began operating the program on July 1, 2022 (State of Arizona, Office of the Governor and Department of Economic Security, Interagency Service Agreement No. ISA-DES-ARPA-021623-01). 2 Federal Uniform Guidance audit requirements require its federal awarding agencies to follow up on audit findings and issue a management decision to ensure the recipient, the Department, takes appropriate and timely corrective action (2 CFR §200.513[c]). Further, it requires that federal awarding agencies’ management decisions clearly state whether or not the audit finding is sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action to repay disallowed costs, make financial adjustments, or take other action, as directed by the federal awarding agencies (2 CFR §200.521). 3 Federal Uniform Guidance cost principles require costs to be adequately documented (2 CFR 200.403[g]) and reasonable (2 CFR 200.404). In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to several factors, including requirements imposed by federal laws and regulations and the terms and conditions of the federal award (2 CFR 200.404[b]). 4 U.S. Department of the Treasury published guidance to assist grantees in ERAP administration, including a requirement for ERAP grantees to establish policies and procedures to govern the implementation of their ERAP programs consistent with the ERAP statutes and U.S. Department of the Treasury FAQs (U.S. Department of the Treasury Emergency Rental Assistance Frequently Asked Questions, Revised March 5, 2024. Retrieved 10/16/2024 from https://home.treasury.gov/system/files?file=136/ERA-FAQs03052024.pdf). 5 To be eligible for program benefits, individuals had to have filed, received, and been deemed eligible in accordance with the Division’s written policies and procedures. The benefit payments consisted of rent and/or utility payments for past-due amounts (a one-time lump sum payment) and for 3 months of payments on each reapplication up to a total of 18 months. Applicants must provide proof of income or self-attestation of no income and cannot earn an income that is above the area median income as determined by the HUD income limits (Section 8) set at 80 percent AMI (Area Median Income). These limits are updated annually and can be viewed at https://www.huduser.gov/portal/datasets/il.html#year2024. Further, applicants who live in Maricopa County must reside in the City of Phoenix. This policy was updated in April 2023 to include the City of Mesa. Rental applications must include a housing agreement with the applicant’s name and current rental address. Utility assistance applications must include bills or invoices or outstanding payments. Applications are reviewed by adjudicators, who ensure the documentation for proof of residence, proof of income, housing agreement, any bills related to utility accounts and proof of risk of homelessness or housing instability are complete and reasonable. Any decisions made contrary to policy must include a rationale for the decision in the supporting documentation for the application (Department of Economic Security Emergency Rental Assistance Program Policy, Rev 8 [7/1/2022] and Rev 9 [4/1/2023]).
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.
FINDING NO: 2023-109 (prior year 2022-090) STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma and Office of Management and Enterprise Services FEDERAL AGENCY: Multiple ALN: Multiple FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: Multiple FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2023 CONTROL CATEGORY: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $0 Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states, says in part, “When procuring property and services under a Federal award, a State must follow the same policies and procedures it uses for procurements from its non-Federal funds. The State will … ensure that every purchase order or other contract includes any clauses required by § 200.327. 2 CFR § 200.404 Reasonable costs, states in part, “A cost is reasonable if, in its nature and amount, it does not exceed that which would be incurred by a prudent person under the circumstances prevailing at the time the decision was made to incur the cost. The question of reasonableness is particularly important when the non-Federal entity is predominantly federally-funded. In determining reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to … : (a) Whether the cost is of a type generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the operation of the non-Federal entity or the proper and efficient performance of the Federal award. (b) The restraints or requirements imposed by such factors as: sound business practices; arm's-length bargaining; Federal, state, local, tribal, and other laws and regulations; and terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the non-Federal entity, its employees, where applicable its students or membership, the public at large, and the Federal Government. (e) Whether the non-Federal entity significantly deviates from its established practices and policies regarding the incurrence of costs, which may unjustifiably increase the Federal award's cost.” 74 O.S. §85.5 Powers and Duties of State Purchasing Director, states in part, “H. 1. The State Purchasing Director may develop and test new contracting policies, procedures and innovations that hold potential for making state procurement more effective and efficient and identify, and make recommendations to the Legislature of, any appropriate changes in law. Such development and testing, proof of concept, pilot project or other similar test shall not be considered an acquisition subject to the Oklahoma Central Purchasing Act. 2. The State Purchasing Director is authorized to explore and investigate cost savings in energy, resource usage and maintenance contracts and to identify and negotiate contract solutions including, but not limited to, pilot projects to achieve cost savings for this state.” Condition and Context: While performing federal compliance testing of all major programs for SFY2022 Single Audit, we were made aware that Office of Management and Enterprise Services (OMES) created a pilot program (starting in SFY 2019/2020) wherein vendors were put on Statewide Contract, thus no longer requiring them to competitively bid their services. These pilot programs are known as Rolling Request for Proposal (RFP) or Rolling Solicitations. In SFY2022, we noted certain non-IT consulting services (SW0133 Statewide Contracts) and Deliverable Based IT Service (SW1050 Statewide Contracts) vendors were added to Statewide Contract pilot program and are now receiving federal funds through this process. In SFY2023, OMES added two additional Statewide Contract pilot programs, SW1025 Information Technology Staff Augmentation Services and SW0132 Non-IT Temporary Employment Services. Vendors under this contract category will also be receiving federal funding. Further, there are no written policies and procedures for any of the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) to describe how these contracts are to be executed to meet both federal and state law. Since there were no written policies and procedures, we were unable to determine how OMES conducted their evaluation process relevant to the scope of services and contract price, to ensure vendors are properly vetted. Lastly, no recommendations have been made to the Legislature on how the Statewide Contract pilot programs has helped state procurement become more effective and efficient for the State of Oklahoma as required by law. As a result, the longer the pilot programs remain open without recommendations to the Legislature, entities on Statewide Contract pilot programs are allowed to charge what they feel are appropriate rates per their federal contracts, without any competitive or vetting process in place. Cause: The OMES does not have adequate controls in place, including policies and procedures, to ensure federal grant contracts are properly executed. Effect: The OMES is not complying with 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states since the agency has no policies and procedures in place for the Statewide Contracting pilot programs. As a result, federal contracts awarded under the Statewide Contracting pilot programs, do not appear to meet State of Oklahoma competitive bidding requirements. Also, contracts with vendors may not contain the applicable provisions required by 2 CFR § 200.327. Lastly, under the existing Statewide Contract pilot programs, OMES can receive increased federal contract fees because vendors are not compelled to charge reasonable rates per 2 CFR § 200.404. Recommendation: We recommend the OMES develop and implement policies and procedures for the Statewide Contract pilot programs to ensure all federal contracts are properly executed. Further, we recommend OMES provide justification on how vendors/consultants put on the Statewide Contract pilot programs are exempt from competitive bidding requirements. Lastly, we recommend the OMES work in a timely manner to either bring the Statewide Contract pilot programs before the legislature to explain the benefits to the state and what should be written into law or eliminate the program. Views of Responsible Official(s) Contact Person: Amanda Otis Anticipated Completion Date: Sine Die Corrective Action Planned: Management does not agree with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of the report. Auditor Response: Based on the corrective action plan provided by management, the procedures provided were not adequate, or timely policies and procedures to explain how the Statewide Contracting pilot programs (Rolling RFP’s) are meeting the competitive bidding requirements per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7. As a result, our finding stands that management does not have adequate policies and procedures to meet 2 CFR § 200.317 Procurements by states for federal contracting. Further, the Statewide Contracting pilot programs lack detailed policies and procedures to show that federal grant contracts are being awarded to the lowest and best, or best value, bidder or bidders per Title 74 O.S. § 85.7.A.7.B.