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.
CFR § 200.404 Reasonable Costs Finding Number: 2023-003 Assistance Listing Number and Title: AL # 84.425 Education Stabilization Fund – Elementary and Secondary Education Federal Award Identification Number / Year: 2023 Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Education Compliance Requirement: 2 CFR § 200.404 Pass-Through Entity: Ohio Department of Education & Workforce Repeat Finding from Prior Audit? No A-Noncompliance and Material Weakness 2 CFR § 200.404 states that a cost is reasonable if it does not exceed an amount that a prudent person would incur under the circumstances prevailing when the decision was made to incur the cost. In determining the reasonableness of a given cost, consideration must be given to the following: (a) Whether the cost is generally recognized as ordinary and necessary for the recipient's or subrecipient's operation 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 costs for the geographic area; (d) Whether the individuals concerned acted with prudence in the circumstances considering their responsibilities to the recipient or subrecipient, its employees, its students or membership (if applicable), the public at large, and the Federal Government; and (e) Whether the cost represents a deviation from the recipient's or subrecipient's established written policies and procedures for incurring costs. The District used Federal American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) grant funding in the amount of $8,648 for airfare for three employees to attend a three-day professional development conference in Rwanda, Africa. Because there were options for professional development conferences with similar content that did not require overseas travel, this expenditure does not meet the prudent person test and the cost of the airfare is deemed excessive in relation to the guidelines above. Furthermore, the use of Federal funding for unallowable expenditure such as this indicates a lack of effective controls over compliance with Federal Allowable Cost/Cost Principle requirements. District management should review all grant award documents in order to execute policies and procedures which help ensure compliance with grant requirements including reasonableness of all expenditures.
Finding No. 2022-005: Significant Deficiency - Administrative financial $20,228 review Condition: During the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) audit in January 2022, TDA noted Anita Moreau received a PPP loan in 2020, paid an employee more than was authorized in the budget and did not get approval for a vendor in their budget. Criteria: In compliance with USDA FNS Instruction 796-2, Rev 4., Section VIII, Part D; Section 7400 "Nonprofit food Service" of CCC/ADC/At-Risk Handbooks; 2 CFR 200.404 & 405, the sponsor must seek approval for all vendors and pay vendors what has been approved per budget. Cause: During the review, TDA sampled expenses to ensure they were necessary, reasonable and allowable. Effect: For expenses tested, TDA noted for 2020 Anita Moreau received a PPP Loan for payroll expenses, in 2021 Anita Moreau overpaid an employee $500 and a vendor was not included in budget. Recommendation: TDA recommends Anita Moreau to provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances around the funds used for program purposes; develop and implement processes and procedures to ensure all costs are properly categorized and disclosed and approvals are appropriately requested; and reimburse the Organization for the amount of questioned costs above.
Finding No. 2022-005: Significant Deficiency - Administrative financial $20,228 review Condition: During the Texas Department of Agriculture (TDA) audit in January 2022, TDA noted Anita Moreau received a PPP loan in 2020, paid an employee more than was authorized in the budget and did not get approval for a vendor in their budget. Criteria: In compliance with USDA FNS Instruction 796-2, Rev 4., Section VIII, Part D; Section 7400 "Nonprofit food Service" of CCC/ADC/At-Risk Handbooks; 2 CFR 200.404 & 405, the sponsor must seek approval for all vendors and pay vendors what has been approved per budget. Cause: During the review, TDA sampled expenses to ensure they were necessary, reasonable and allowable. Effect: For expenses tested, TDA noted for 2020 Anita Moreau received a PPP Loan for payroll expenses, in 2021 Anita Moreau overpaid an employee $500 and a vendor was not included in budget. Recommendation: TDA recommends Anita Moreau to provide a detailed explanation of the circumstances around the funds used for program purposes; develop and implement processes and procedures to ensure all costs are properly categorized and disclosed and approvals are appropriately requested; and reimburse the Organization for the amount of questioned costs above.
Assistance listing program: Education Stabilization Fund - Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) Assistance Listing Number: 84.425F Award identification number: P425F204999 Award period: September 29, 2020 to June 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through entity: N/A Category: Internal Control / Compliance Finding Type: Material Weakness Compliance requirement: Allowed Cost / Cost Principles Condition and context In testing compliance and internal controls over cost allowability / cost principles, we selected a sample of ten (10) transactions which amounted to $445,522 of HEERF Institutional aid funds expenditures. Our sample was a statistically valid sample. During our expenditure test, we noted the following deficiencies: a) In one transaction of a sample of ten (10) disbursements (10%) the vendor quote was not available for examination. The transaction amounted to $5,899. The Institution indicated that they followed the micro purchase threshold of $10,000 as defined in 48CFR Part 2, subpart 2.1. However, this determination was not properly documented. b) In two (2) transactions of our sample (20%) the cost per quote did not agree with the amount of the invoice. The amount invoiced in excess of the quote cost was $1,090. c) In three (3) transactions of our sample (30%) we did not find documentation that the equipment was received (date and the employee who received the item). We inquired the Institution?s Management about this matter, and they explained that the Institution does not have a formal procedure or form to document the receipt of goods. Management confirmed and represented us that the items were properly received. d) In one transaction of our sample (10%) the expenditure was related to the amount of lost revenue claimed by the Institution in the fiscal year 2021-22. Upon examination of the Institution analysis, we noted that the lost revenue was not properly determined because the following situations: 1. For the loss of revenue calculation, the Institution used the unaudited figures for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2021. 2. We noted that the Institution considered in its analysis revenue that was not in accordance with the program guidelines (transactions that were not reimbursable under the HEERF grant program). 3. We noted that the lost revenue determined by the Institution was incorrectly determined (lost revenue claimed was understated by approximately $80,000) as result of the net effect of the deficiencies 1 and 2, above. Criteria 2 CFR 200.302 (b) (3) and (7) require records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federally funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income, and interest and be supported by source documentation. Written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. 2 CFR 200.303 (a) to (d) establish that the non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework,? issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. 2 CFR 200.400 (a) to (d) establish that the application of these cost principles is based on the fundamental premises that: (a) The non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices. (b) The non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) The non-Federal entity, in recognition of its own unique combination of staff, facilities, and experience, has the primary responsibility for employing whatever form of sound organization and management techniques may be necessary in order to assure proper and efficient administration of the Federal award. (d) The application of these cost principles should require no significant changes in the internal accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity. However, the accounting practices of the non-Federal entity must be consistent with these cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the principles and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the Federal awards. 2 CFR 200.403, related to factors affecting allowability of cost, (c) and (g) establish that except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity, and be adequately documented. 2 CFR 200.404 establishes that 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; and (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. 2 CFR 200.406 (a) establishes that applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction-of-expenditure-type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to the Federal awards as direct or indirect (F&A) costs. Examples of such transactions are: purchase discounts, rebates or allowances, recoveries or indemnities on losses, insurance refunds or rebates, and adjustments of overpayments or erroneous charges. To the extent that such credits accruing to or received by the non-Federal entity relate to allowable costs, they must be credited to the Federal award either as a cost reduction or cash refund, as appropriate. 2 CFR 200.334 establishes that financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. 2 CFR 200.337 (a) establishes that the Federal awarding agency, Inspectors General, the Comptroller General of the United States, and the pass-through entity, or any of their authorized representatives, must have the right of access to any documents, papers, or other records of the non-Federal entity which are pertinent to the Federal award, in order to make audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts. The right also includes timely and reasonable access to the non-Federal entity's personnel for the purpose of interview and discussion related to such documents. The Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF I, II, and III) Lost Revenue Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) published on March 19, 2021, in question number four establishes that sources of lost revenue that are not reimbursable under the HEERF grant programs include the following: capital outlays associated with facilities related to athletics (including fees assessed for capital athletic facility construction), acquisition of real property (including bond revenue), contributions or donations to the institution, marketing or recruitment activities, revenue related to sectarian instruction or religious worship, alcohol sales, and investment income (including endowment and quasi-endowment revenue. Cause The cause of the deficiencies noted were the result of the following situations: a) Lack of written policies and procedures did not provide the Institution?s personnel responsible for the purchasing process a guidance on how to perform and document the purchase transactions under this federal program. b) The vendor invoice was not compared to the quote and no inquiries were made and/or documented explaining the cause of the difference. c) The Institution does not have formal and written procedures to document when materials and/or equipment are received by the Institution?s personnel. d) The Institution management did not consult or requested assistance from the Department of Education program coordinator to ascertain that the request was properly performed and to clarify questions related to the allowable revenue to be considered in the analysis. Also, the Institution failed to review the financial figures of the audited trial balance for 2021. Effect Noncompliance with the above-mentioned requirements could lead to administrative actions by the grantor. It could also be interpreted as a failure to manage federal awards in compliance with laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts and grant agreements. Also, the above conditions could result in the reimbursement of federal funds to the grantors for those disbursements not properly supported and reviewed by the Institution?s management. Questioned costs Refer to finding 2022-010. Identification as a Repeat Finding No repeated finding. Recommendations We recommend the Institution to establish adequate procedures and controls, which shall consider, among others, the following: ? Maintain adequate documentation to support the allowability of its expenditures. ? Purchases must be properly documented to provide the appropriate audit trail of the transactions and allow proper review of the transactions. Adequate documentation should be sufficient to explain the Institution?s analysis and determination. ? Improve its policies and procedures, and internal controls to incorporate the comparison of the vendor invoices with the quotes after the invoice is received to ascertain that expenses and liabilities are properly recorded. Instruct personnel of accounts payable to contact the vendor when discrepancies are identified and document in writing the inquiry performed, the results, and conclusions. ? Implement a formal process with receiving reports or checklist where upon receipt of equipment and/or materials purchased could detail description, amount received, date of receipt, and a reference to the invoice. Copies of the receiving reports and invoices should then be forwarded to the accounting department for processing. Payment of a vendor?s invoice should not be made unless a copy of a receiving report is attached. ? The Institution management should review the Loss of Revenue claims and/or analysis performed by any employee or consultant that was designated to perform such a task. The Institution?s management should verify and ascertain that the analysis performed using the Institution?s financial information agree with the Institution?s audited financial statements. ? The Institution?s management should consult with the US Department of Education program coordinator when questions or concerns arise, especially if management is not familiar with program regulations and/or the federal program is new. Views of Responsible Officials Refer to the Institutional comments included in the Corrective Action Plan.
Assistance listing program: Education Stabilization Fund - Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF) Assistance Listing Number: 84.425F Award identification number: P425F204999 Award period: September 29, 2020 to June 30, 2023 Federal agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-through entity: N/A Category: Internal Control / Compliance Finding Type: Material Weakness Compliance requirement: Allowed Cost / Cost Principles Condition and context In testing compliance and internal controls over cost allowability / cost principles, we selected a sample of ten (10) transactions which amounted to $445,522 of HEERF Institutional aid funds expenditures. Our sample was a statistically valid sample. During our expenditure test, we noted the following deficiencies: a) In one transaction of a sample of ten (10) disbursements (10%) the vendor quote was not available for examination. The transaction amounted to $5,899. The Institution indicated that they followed the micro purchase threshold of $10,000 as defined in 48CFR Part 2, subpart 2.1. However, this determination was not properly documented. b) In two (2) transactions of our sample (20%) the cost per quote did not agree with the amount of the invoice. The amount invoiced in excess of the quote cost was $1,090. c) In three (3) transactions of our sample (30%) we did not find documentation that the equipment was received (date and the employee who received the item). We inquired the Institution?s Management about this matter, and they explained that the Institution does not have a formal procedure or form to document the receipt of goods. Management confirmed and represented us that the items were properly received. d) In one transaction of our sample (10%) the expenditure was related to the amount of lost revenue claimed by the Institution in the fiscal year 2021-22. Upon examination of the Institution analysis, we noted that the lost revenue was not properly determined because the following situations: 1. For the loss of revenue calculation, the Institution used the unaudited figures for the fiscal year ended July 31, 2021. 2. We noted that the Institution considered in its analysis revenue that was not in accordance with the program guidelines (transactions that were not reimbursable under the HEERF grant program). 3. We noted that the lost revenue determined by the Institution was incorrectly determined (lost revenue claimed was understated by approximately $80,000) as result of the net effect of the deficiencies 1 and 2, above. Criteria 2 CFR 200.302 (b) (3) and (7) require records that identify adequately the source and application of funds for federally funded activities. These records must contain information pertaining to Federal awards, authorizations, financial obligations, unobligated balances, assets, expenditures, income, and interest and be supported by source documentation. Written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. 2 CFR 200.303 (a) to (d) establish that the non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal awards that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework,? issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. 2 CFR 200.400 (a) to (d) establish that the application of these cost principles is based on the fundamental premises that: (a) The non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices. (b) The non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. (c) The non-Federal entity, in recognition of its own unique combination of staff, facilities, and experience, has the primary responsibility for employing whatever form of sound organization and management techniques may be necessary in order to assure proper and efficient administration of the Federal award. (d) The application of these cost principles should require no significant changes in the internal accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity. However, the accounting practices of the non-Federal entity must be consistent with these cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the principles and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the Federal awards. 2 CFR 200.403, related to factors affecting allowability of cost, (c) and (g) establish that except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity, and be adequately documented. 2 CFR 200.404 establishes that 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; and (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. 2 CFR 200.406 (a) establishes that applicable credits refer to those receipts or reduction-of-expenditure-type transactions that offset or reduce expense items allocable to the Federal awards as direct or indirect (F&A) costs. Examples of such transactions are: purchase discounts, rebates or allowances, recoveries or indemnities on losses, insurance refunds or rebates, and adjustments of overpayments or erroneous charges. To the extent that such credits accruing to or received by the non-Federal entity relate to allowable costs, they must be credited to the Federal award either as a cost reduction or cash refund, as appropriate. 2 CFR 200.334 establishes that financial records, supporting documents, statistical records, and all other non-Federal entity records pertinent to a Federal award must be retained for a period of three years from the date of submission of the final expenditure report or, for Federal awards that are renewed quarterly or annually, from the date of the submission of the quarterly or annual financial report, respectively, as reported to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient. 2 CFR 200.337 (a) establishes that the Federal awarding agency, Inspectors General, the Comptroller General of the United States, and the pass-through entity, or any of their authorized representatives, must have the right of access to any documents, papers, or other records of the non-Federal entity which are pertinent to the Federal award, in order to make audits, examinations, excerpts, and transcripts. The right also includes timely and reasonable access to the non-Federal entity's personnel for the purpose of interview and discussion related to such documents. The Higher Education Emergency Relief Fund (HEERF I, II, and III) Lost Revenue Frequently Asked Questions (FAQs) published on March 19, 2021, in question number four establishes that sources of lost revenue that are not reimbursable under the HEERF grant programs include the following: capital outlays associated with facilities related to athletics (including fees assessed for capital athletic facility construction), acquisition of real property (including bond revenue), contributions or donations to the institution, marketing or recruitment activities, revenue related to sectarian instruction or religious worship, alcohol sales, and investment income (including endowment and quasi-endowment revenue. Cause The cause of the deficiencies noted were the result of the following situations: a) Lack of written policies and procedures did not provide the Institution?s personnel responsible for the purchasing process a guidance on how to perform and document the purchase transactions under this federal program. b) The vendor invoice was not compared to the quote and no inquiries were made and/or documented explaining the cause of the difference. c) The Institution does not have formal and written procedures to document when materials and/or equipment are received by the Institution?s personnel. d) The Institution management did not consult or requested assistance from the Department of Education program coordinator to ascertain that the request was properly performed and to clarify questions related to the allowable revenue to be considered in the analysis. Also, the Institution failed to review the financial figures of the audited trial balance for 2021. Effect Noncompliance with the above-mentioned requirements could lead to administrative actions by the grantor. It could also be interpreted as a failure to manage federal awards in compliance with laws, regulations, and provisions of contracts and grant agreements. Also, the above conditions could result in the reimbursement of federal funds to the grantors for those disbursements not properly supported and reviewed by the Institution?s management. Questioned costs Refer to finding 2022-010. Identification as a Repeat Finding No repeated finding. Recommendations We recommend the Institution to establish adequate procedures and controls, which shall consider, among others, the following: ? Maintain adequate documentation to support the allowability of its expenditures. ? Purchases must be properly documented to provide the appropriate audit trail of the transactions and allow proper review of the transactions. Adequate documentation should be sufficient to explain the Institution?s analysis and determination. ? Improve its policies and procedures, and internal controls to incorporate the comparison of the vendor invoices with the quotes after the invoice is received to ascertain that expenses and liabilities are properly recorded. Instruct personnel of accounts payable to contact the vendor when discrepancies are identified and document in writing the inquiry performed, the results, and conclusions. ? Implement a formal process with receiving reports or checklist where upon receipt of equipment and/or materials purchased could detail description, amount received, date of receipt, and a reference to the invoice. Copies of the receiving reports and invoices should then be forwarded to the accounting department for processing. Payment of a vendor?s invoice should not be made unless a copy of a receiving report is attached. ? The Institution management should review the Loss of Revenue claims and/or analysis performed by any employee or consultant that was designated to perform such a task. The Institution?s management should verify and ascertain that the analysis performed using the Institution?s financial information agree with the Institution?s audited financial statements. ? The Institution?s management should consult with the US Department of Education program coordinator when questions or concerns arise, especially if management is not familiar with program regulations and/or the federal program is new. Views of Responsible Officials Refer to the Institutional comments included in the Corrective Action Plan.
FA 2022-001 Improve Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 ? 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 ? 84.425U ? American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Number: S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $61,000.00 Repeat of Prior Year Finding: None Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over expenditures as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $2,583,527.47 were expended and reported on the Atkinson County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.404 ? Reasonable Costs state that ?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? (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.? Furthermore, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 ? General Procurement Standards state that ?the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations? for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward?? Condition: Auditors performed a review of expenditure activity associated with the ESSER program to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. This testing revealed that ?retention? bonuses were paid to individuals who were not employees of the School District. These individuals were hired to perform specific functions as detailed within the associated contracts and were paid amounts in excess of the stated rate noted within these contracts. Furthermore, the School District does not have the authority or ability to retain these individuals as they were not employees of the School District and contract provisions requiring the individuals to remain in the service of the School District for a stated period of time was not reflected within the associated contract. Therefore, expenditures totaling $61,000.00 were not considered to be reasonable and necessary for the performance of the ESSER program and deemed unallowable. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $61,000.00 were identified for expenditures that were not incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and did not follow the School District?s policies and procedures. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: Per discussion with management, the School District believed that the expenditures were allowable as the expenditures were approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process and approved by the local Board of Education; however, they were not aware that contract amendments should be initiated prior to the expenditure of funds in this manner. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are followed when expending federal funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are in line with provisions reflected within the associated contract and/or contract amendments. In addition, the School District should implement a monitoring process to ensure that all expenditures are compliant with the School District?s purchasing policies and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Improve Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 ? 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 ? 84.425U ? American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Number: S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $61,000.00 Repeat of Prior Year Finding: None Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over expenditures as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $2,583,527.47 were expended and reported on the Atkinson County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.404 ? Reasonable Costs state that ?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? (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.? Furthermore, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 ? General Procurement Standards state that ?the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations? for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward?? Condition: Auditors performed a review of expenditure activity associated with the ESSER program to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. This testing revealed that ?retention? bonuses were paid to individuals who were not employees of the School District. These individuals were hired to perform specific functions as detailed within the associated contracts and were paid amounts in excess of the stated rate noted within these contracts. Furthermore, the School District does not have the authority or ability to retain these individuals as they were not employees of the School District and contract provisions requiring the individuals to remain in the service of the School District for a stated period of time was not reflected within the associated contract. Therefore, expenditures totaling $61,000.00 were not considered to be reasonable and necessary for the performance of the ESSER program and deemed unallowable. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $61,000.00 were identified for expenditures that were not incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and did not follow the School District?s policies and procedures. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: Per discussion with management, the School District believed that the expenditures were allowable as the expenditures were approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process and approved by the local Board of Education; however, they were not aware that contract amendments should be initiated prior to the expenditure of funds in this manner. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are followed when expending federal funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are in line with provisions reflected within the associated contract and/or contract amendments. In addition, the School District should implement a monitoring process to ensure that all expenditures are compliant with the School District?s purchasing policies and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FINDING 2022-003 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Number: 84.425 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013, S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency, Other Matters Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. The Education Stabilization Fund established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and further funded by the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRSSA) and the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act was for the purpose of preventing, preparing for, or responding to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). During fiscal year 2020-2021, 2 of 40 vendor claims tested and 4 of 13 payroll claims tested paid for supplies, services, and payroll without an explanation for how the expenditures prevented, prepared for, or responded to COVID-19. The total of unsupported expenditures for DJ services, gaming chairs, and additional payroll and stipends was $15,787. These amounts were considered questioned costs. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The Non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.404 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. . . ." Public Law 116-136, Section 18003(d) states: "USES OF FUNDS.?A local educational agency that receives funds under this title may use funds for any of the following: (1) Any activity authorized by the ESEA of 1965, including the Native Hawaiian Education Act and the Alaska Native Educational Equity, Support, and Assistance Act (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) ('IDEA'), the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.) ('the Perkins Act'), or subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.). (2) Coordination of preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies with State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health departments, and other relevant agencies, to improve coordinated responses among such entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. (3) Providing principals and others school leaders with the resources necessary to address the needs of their individual schools. (4) Activities to address the unique needs of low-income children or students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and foster care youth, including how outreach and service delivery will meet the needs of each population. (5) Developing and implementing procedures and systems to improve the preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies. (6) Training and professional development for staff of the local educational agency on sanitation and minimizing the spread of infectious diseases. (7) Purchasing supplies to sanitize and clean the facilities of a local educational agency, including buildings operated by such agency. (8) Planning for and coordinating during long-term closures, including for how to provide meals to eligible students, how to provide technology for online learning to all students, how to provide guidance for carrying out requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and how to ensure other educational services can continue to be provided consistent with all Federal, State, and local requirements. (9) Purchasing educational technology (including hardware, software, and connectivity) for students who are served by the local educational agency that aids in regular and substantive educational interaction between students and their classroom instructors, including low-income students and students with disabilities, which may include assistive technology or adaptive equipment. (10) Providing mental health services and supports. (11) Planning and implementing activities related to summer learning and supplemental afterschool programs, including providing classroom instruction or online learning during the summer months and addressing the needs of low-income students, students with disabilities, English learners, migrant students, students experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care. (12) Other activities that are necessary to maintain the operation of and continuity of services in local educational H. R. 748?287 agencies and continuing to employ existing staff of the local educational agency." Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, P.L. 116-260, section 313(d) states: "USES OF FUNDS.?A local educational agency that receives funds under this section may use the funds for any of the following: (1) Any activity authorized by the ESEA of 1965, including the Native Hawaiian Education Act and the Alaska Native Educational Equity, Support, and Assistance Act (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) ('IDEA'), the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.) ('the Perkins Act'), or subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.). (2) Coordination of preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies with State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health departments, and other relevant agencies, to improve coordinated responses among such entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. (3) Providing principals and others school leaders with the resources necessary to address the needs of their individual schools. (4) Activities to address the unique needs of low-income children or students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and foster care youth, including how outreach and service delivery will meet the needs of each population. (5) Developing and implementing procedures and systems to improve the preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies. (6) Training and professional development for staff of the local educational agency on sanitation and minimizing the spread of infectious diseases. (7) Purchasing supplies to sanitize and clean the facilities of a local educational agency, including buildings operated by such agency. (8) Planning for, coordinating, and implementing activities during long-term closures, including providing meals to eligible students, providing technology for online learning to all students, providing guidance for carrying out requirements under the IDEA and ensuring other educational services can continue to be provided consistent with all Federal, State, and local requirements. (9) Purchasing educational technology (including hardware, software, and connectivity) for students who are served by the local educational agency that aids in regular and substantive educational interaction between students and their classroom instructors, including low-income students and children with disabilities, which may include assistive technology or adaptive equipment. (10) Providing mental health services and supports. (11) Planning and implementing activities related to summer learning and supplemental afterschool programs, including providing classroom instruction or online learning during the summer months and addressing the needs of low-income students, children with disabilities, English learners, migrant students, students experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care. (12) Addressing learning loss among students, including low-income students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and children and youth in foster care, of the local educational agency, including by? (A) Administering and using high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable, to accurately assess students? academic progress and assist educators in meeting students? academic needs, including through differentiating instruction. (B) Implementing evidence-based activities to meet the comprehensive needs of students. (C) Providing information and assistance to parents and families on how they can effectively support students, including in a distance learning environment. (D) Tracking student attendance and improving student engagement in distance education. (13) School facility repairs and improvements to enable operation of schools to reduce risk of virus transmission and exposure to environmental health hazards, and to support student health needs. (14) Inspection, testing, maintenance, repair, replacement, and upgrade projects to improve the indoor air quality in school facilities, including mechanical and non-mechanical heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, filtering, purification and other air cleaning, fans, control systems, and window and door repair and replacement. (15) Other activities that are necessary to maintain the operation of and continuity of services in local educational agencies and continuing to employ existing staff of the local educational agency." American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, H.R. 1319, section 2001(e) states: "USES OF FUNDS.?A local educational agency that receives funds under this section? (1) shall reserve not less than 20 percent of such funds to address learning loss through the implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as summer learning or summer enrichment, extended day, comprehensive afterschool programs, or extended school year programs, and ensure that such interventions respond to students' academic, social, and emotional needs and address the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus on the student subgroups described in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(xi) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(B)(xi)), students experiencing homelessness, and children and youth in foster care; and (2) shall use the remaining funds for any of the following: (A) Any activity authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. (B) Any activity authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (C) Any activity authorized by the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act. (D) Any activity authorized by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006. (E) Coordination of preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies with State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health departments, and other relevant agencies, to improve coordinated responses among such entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. (F) Activities to address the unique needs of low-income children or students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and foster care youth, including how outreach and service delivery will meet the needs of each population. (G) Developing and implementing procedures and systems to improve the preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies. (H) Training and professional development for staff of the local educational agency on sanitation and minimizing the spread of infectious diseases. (I) Purchasing supplies to sanitize and clean the facilities of a local educational agency, including buildings operated by such agency. (J) Planning for, coordinating, and implementing activities during long-term closures, including providing meals to eligible students, providing technology for online learning to all students, providing guidance for carrying out requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and ensuring other educational services can H. R. 1319?18 continue to be provided consistent with all Federal, State, and local requirements. (K) Purchasing educational technology (including hardware, software, and connectivity) for students who are served by the local educational agency that aids in regular and substantive educational interaction between students and their classroom instructors, including low-income students and children with disabilities, which may include assistive technology or adaptive equipment. (L) Providing mental health services and supports, including through the implementation of evidence-based full-service community schools. (M) Planning and implementing activities related to summer learning and supplemental afterschool programs, including providing classroom instruction or online learning during the summer months and addressing the needs of low-income students, children with disabilities, English learners, migrant students, students experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care. (N) Addressing learning loss among students, including low-income students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and children and youth in foster care, of the local educational agency, including by? (i) administering and using high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable, to accurately assess students' academic progress and assist educators in meeting students' academic needs, including through differentiating instruction; (ii) implementing evidence-based activities to meet the comprehensive needs of students; (iii) providing information and assistance to parents and families on how they can effectively support students, including in a distance learning environment; and (iv) tracking student attendance and improving student engagement in distance education. (O) School facility repairs and improvements to enable operation of schools to reduce risk of virus transmission and exposure to environmental health hazards, and to support student health needs. (P) Inspection, testing, maintenance, repair, replacement, and upgrade projects to improve the indoor air quality in school facilities, including mechanical and nonmechanical heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, filtering, purification and other air cleaning, fans, control systems, and window and door repair and replacement. (Q) Developing strategies and implementing public health protocols including, to the greatest extent practicable, policies in line with guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the reopening and operation of school facilities to effectively maintain the health and safety of students, educators, and other staff. H. R. 1319?19 (R) Other activities that are necessary to maintain the operation of and continuity of services in local educational agencies and continuing to employ existing staff of the local educational agency." Cause The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal control that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit related to the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. Effect The failure to retain and provide appropriate supporting documentation prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the compliance requirements listed above. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $15,787 were identified as noted in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to ensure that documentation will be maintained and made available for audit related to the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-003 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Number: 84.425 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013, S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency, Other Matters Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. The Education Stabilization Fund established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and further funded by the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRSSA) and the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act was for the purpose of preventing, preparing for, or responding to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). During fiscal year 2020-2021, 2 of 40 vendor claims tested and 4 of 13 payroll claims tested paid for supplies, services, and payroll without an explanation for how the expenditures prevented, prepared for, or responded to COVID-19. The total of unsupported expenditures for DJ services, gaming chairs, and additional payroll and stipends was $15,787. These amounts were considered questioned costs. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The Non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.404 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. . . ." Public Law 116-136, Section 18003(d) states: "USES OF FUNDS.?A local educational agency that receives funds under this title may use funds for any of the following: (1) Any activity authorized by the ESEA of 1965, including the Native Hawaiian Education Act and the Alaska Native Educational Equity, Support, and Assistance Act (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) ('IDEA'), the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.) ('the Perkins Act'), or subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.). (2) Coordination of preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies with State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health departments, and other relevant agencies, to improve coordinated responses among such entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. (3) Providing principals and others school leaders with the resources necessary to address the needs of their individual schools. (4) Activities to address the unique needs of low-income children or students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and foster care youth, including how outreach and service delivery will meet the needs of each population. (5) Developing and implementing procedures and systems to improve the preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies. (6) Training and professional development for staff of the local educational agency on sanitation and minimizing the spread of infectious diseases. (7) Purchasing supplies to sanitize and clean the facilities of a local educational agency, including buildings operated by such agency. (8) Planning for and coordinating during long-term closures, including for how to provide meals to eligible students, how to provide technology for online learning to all students, how to provide guidance for carrying out requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and how to ensure other educational services can continue to be provided consistent with all Federal, State, and local requirements. (9) Purchasing educational technology (including hardware, software, and connectivity) for students who are served by the local educational agency that aids in regular and substantive educational interaction between students and their classroom instructors, including low-income students and students with disabilities, which may include assistive technology or adaptive equipment. (10) Providing mental health services and supports. (11) Planning and implementing activities related to summer learning and supplemental afterschool programs, including providing classroom instruction or online learning during the summer months and addressing the needs of low-income students, students with disabilities, English learners, migrant students, students experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care. (12) Other activities that are necessary to maintain the operation of and continuity of services in local educational H. R. 748?287 agencies and continuing to employ existing staff of the local educational agency." Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, P.L. 116-260, section 313(d) states: "USES OF FUNDS.?A local educational agency that receives funds under this section may use the funds for any of the following: (1) Any activity authorized by the ESEA of 1965, including the Native Hawaiian Education Act and the Alaska Native Educational Equity, Support, and Assistance Act (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) ('IDEA'), the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.) ('the Perkins Act'), or subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.). (2) Coordination of preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies with State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health departments, and other relevant agencies, to improve coordinated responses among such entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. (3) Providing principals and others school leaders with the resources necessary to address the needs of their individual schools. (4) Activities to address the unique needs of low-income children or students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and foster care youth, including how outreach and service delivery will meet the needs of each population. (5) Developing and implementing procedures and systems to improve the preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies. (6) Training and professional development for staff of the local educational agency on sanitation and minimizing the spread of infectious diseases. (7) Purchasing supplies to sanitize and clean the facilities of a local educational agency, including buildings operated by such agency. (8) Planning for, coordinating, and implementing activities during long-term closures, including providing meals to eligible students, providing technology for online learning to all students, providing guidance for carrying out requirements under the IDEA and ensuring other educational services can continue to be provided consistent with all Federal, State, and local requirements. (9) Purchasing educational technology (including hardware, software, and connectivity) for students who are served by the local educational agency that aids in regular and substantive educational interaction between students and their classroom instructors, including low-income students and children with disabilities, which may include assistive technology or adaptive equipment. (10) Providing mental health services and supports. (11) Planning and implementing activities related to summer learning and supplemental afterschool programs, including providing classroom instruction or online learning during the summer months and addressing the needs of low-income students, children with disabilities, English learners, migrant students, students experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care. (12) Addressing learning loss among students, including low-income students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and children and youth in foster care, of the local educational agency, including by? (A) Administering and using high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable, to accurately assess students? academic progress and assist educators in meeting students? academic needs, including through differentiating instruction. (B) Implementing evidence-based activities to meet the comprehensive needs of students. (C) Providing information and assistance to parents and families on how they can effectively support students, including in a distance learning environment. (D) Tracking student attendance and improving student engagement in distance education. (13) School facility repairs and improvements to enable operation of schools to reduce risk of virus transmission and exposure to environmental health hazards, and to support student health needs. (14) Inspection, testing, maintenance, repair, replacement, and upgrade projects to improve the indoor air quality in school facilities, including mechanical and non-mechanical heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, filtering, purification and other air cleaning, fans, control systems, and window and door repair and replacement. (15) Other activities that are necessary to maintain the operation of and continuity of services in local educational agencies and continuing to employ existing staff of the local educational agency." American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, H.R. 1319, section 2001(e) states: "USES OF FUNDS.?A local educational agency that receives funds under this section? (1) shall reserve not less than 20 percent of such funds to address learning loss through the implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as summer learning or summer enrichment, extended day, comprehensive afterschool programs, or extended school year programs, and ensure that such interventions respond to students' academic, social, and emotional needs and address the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus on the student subgroups described in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(xi) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(B)(xi)), students experiencing homelessness, and children and youth in foster care; and (2) shall use the remaining funds for any of the following: (A) Any activity authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. (B) Any activity authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (C) Any activity authorized by the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act. (D) Any activity authorized by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006. (E) Coordination of preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies with State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health departments, and other relevant agencies, to improve coordinated responses among such entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. (F) Activities to address the unique needs of low-income children or students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and foster care youth, including how outreach and service delivery will meet the needs of each population. (G) Developing and implementing procedures and systems to improve the preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies. (H) Training and professional development for staff of the local educational agency on sanitation and minimizing the spread of infectious diseases. (I) Purchasing supplies to sanitize and clean the facilities of a local educational agency, including buildings operated by such agency. (J) Planning for, coordinating, and implementing activities during long-term closures, including providing meals to eligible students, providing technology for online learning to all students, providing guidance for carrying out requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and ensuring other educational services can H. R. 1319?18 continue to be provided consistent with all Federal, State, and local requirements. (K) Purchasing educational technology (including hardware, software, and connectivity) for students who are served by the local educational agency that aids in regular and substantive educational interaction between students and their classroom instructors, including low-income students and children with disabilities, which may include assistive technology or adaptive equipment. (L) Providing mental health services and supports, including through the implementation of evidence-based full-service community schools. (M) Planning and implementing activities related to summer learning and supplemental afterschool programs, including providing classroom instruction or online learning during the summer months and addressing the needs of low-income students, children with disabilities, English learners, migrant students, students experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care. (N) Addressing learning loss among students, including low-income students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and children and youth in foster care, of the local educational agency, including by? (i) administering and using high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable, to accurately assess students' academic progress and assist educators in meeting students' academic needs, including through differentiating instruction; (ii) implementing evidence-based activities to meet the comprehensive needs of students; (iii) providing information and assistance to parents and families on how they can effectively support students, including in a distance learning environment; and (iv) tracking student attendance and improving student engagement in distance education. (O) School facility repairs and improvements to enable operation of schools to reduce risk of virus transmission and exposure to environmental health hazards, and to support student health needs. (P) Inspection, testing, maintenance, repair, replacement, and upgrade projects to improve the indoor air quality in school facilities, including mechanical and nonmechanical heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, filtering, purification and other air cleaning, fans, control systems, and window and door repair and replacement. (Q) Developing strategies and implementing public health protocols including, to the greatest extent practicable, policies in line with guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the reopening and operation of school facilities to effectively maintain the health and safety of students, educators, and other staff. H. R. 1319?19 (R) Other activities that are necessary to maintain the operation of and continuity of services in local educational agencies and continuing to employ existing staff of the local educational agency." Cause The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal control that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit related to the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. Effect The failure to retain and provide appropriate supporting documentation prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the compliance requirements listed above. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $15,787 were identified as noted in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to ensure that documentation will be maintained and made available for audit related to the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-003 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Number: 84.425 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013, S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency, Other Matters Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. The Education Stabilization Fund established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and further funded by the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRSSA) and the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act was for the purpose of preventing, preparing for, or responding to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). During fiscal year 2020-2021, 2 of 40 vendor claims tested and 4 of 13 payroll claims tested paid for supplies, services, and payroll without an explanation for how the expenditures prevented, prepared for, or responded to COVID-19. The total of unsupported expenditures for DJ services, gaming chairs, and additional payroll and stipends was $15,787. These amounts were considered questioned costs. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The Non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.404 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. . . ." Public Law 116-136, Section 18003(d) states: "USES OF FUNDS.?A local educational agency that receives funds under this title may use funds for any of the following: (1) Any activity authorized by the ESEA of 1965, including the Native Hawaiian Education Act and the Alaska Native Educational Equity, Support, and Assistance Act (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) ('IDEA'), the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.) ('the Perkins Act'), or subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.). (2) Coordination of preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies with State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health departments, and other relevant agencies, to improve coordinated responses among such entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. (3) Providing principals and others school leaders with the resources necessary to address the needs of their individual schools. (4) Activities to address the unique needs of low-income children or students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and foster care youth, including how outreach and service delivery will meet the needs of each population. (5) Developing and implementing procedures and systems to improve the preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies. (6) Training and professional development for staff of the local educational agency on sanitation and minimizing the spread of infectious diseases. (7) Purchasing supplies to sanitize and clean the facilities of a local educational agency, including buildings operated by such agency. (8) Planning for and coordinating during long-term closures, including for how to provide meals to eligible students, how to provide technology for online learning to all students, how to provide guidance for carrying out requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and how to ensure other educational services can continue to be provided consistent with all Federal, State, and local requirements. (9) Purchasing educational technology (including hardware, software, and connectivity) for students who are served by the local educational agency that aids in regular and substantive educational interaction between students and their classroom instructors, including low-income students and students with disabilities, which may include assistive technology or adaptive equipment. (10) Providing mental health services and supports. (11) Planning and implementing activities related to summer learning and supplemental afterschool programs, including providing classroom instruction or online learning during the summer months and addressing the needs of low-income students, students with disabilities, English learners, migrant students, students experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care. (12) Other activities that are necessary to maintain the operation of and continuity of services in local educational H. R. 748?287 agencies and continuing to employ existing staff of the local educational agency." Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, P.L. 116-260, section 313(d) states: "USES OF FUNDS.?A local educational agency that receives funds under this section may use the funds for any of the following: (1) Any activity authorized by the ESEA of 1965, including the Native Hawaiian Education Act and the Alaska Native Educational Equity, Support, and Assistance Act (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) ('IDEA'), the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.) ('the Perkins Act'), or subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.). (2) Coordination of preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies with State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health departments, and other relevant agencies, to improve coordinated responses among such entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. (3) Providing principals and others school leaders with the resources necessary to address the needs of their individual schools. (4) Activities to address the unique needs of low-income children or students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and foster care youth, including how outreach and service delivery will meet the needs of each population. (5) Developing and implementing procedures and systems to improve the preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies. (6) Training and professional development for staff of the local educational agency on sanitation and minimizing the spread of infectious diseases. (7) Purchasing supplies to sanitize and clean the facilities of a local educational agency, including buildings operated by such agency. (8) Planning for, coordinating, and implementing activities during long-term closures, including providing meals to eligible students, providing technology for online learning to all students, providing guidance for carrying out requirements under the IDEA and ensuring other educational services can continue to be provided consistent with all Federal, State, and local requirements. (9) Purchasing educational technology (including hardware, software, and connectivity) for students who are served by the local educational agency that aids in regular and substantive educational interaction between students and their classroom instructors, including low-income students and children with disabilities, which may include assistive technology or adaptive equipment. (10) Providing mental health services and supports. (11) Planning and implementing activities related to summer learning and supplemental afterschool programs, including providing classroom instruction or online learning during the summer months and addressing the needs of low-income students, children with disabilities, English learners, migrant students, students experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care. (12) Addressing learning loss among students, including low-income students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and children and youth in foster care, of the local educational agency, including by? (A) Administering and using high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable, to accurately assess students? academic progress and assist educators in meeting students? academic needs, including through differentiating instruction. (B) Implementing evidence-based activities to meet the comprehensive needs of students. (C) Providing information and assistance to parents and families on how they can effectively support students, including in a distance learning environment. (D) Tracking student attendance and improving student engagement in distance education. (13) School facility repairs and improvements to enable operation of schools to reduce risk of virus transmission and exposure to environmental health hazards, and to support student health needs. (14) Inspection, testing, maintenance, repair, replacement, and upgrade projects to improve the indoor air quality in school facilities, including mechanical and non-mechanical heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, filtering, purification and other air cleaning, fans, control systems, and window and door repair and replacement. (15) Other activities that are necessary to maintain the operation of and continuity of services in local educational agencies and continuing to employ existing staff of the local educational agency." American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, H.R. 1319, section 2001(e) states: "USES OF FUNDS.?A local educational agency that receives funds under this section? (1) shall reserve not less than 20 percent of such funds to address learning loss through the implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as summer learning or summer enrichment, extended day, comprehensive afterschool programs, or extended school year programs, and ensure that such interventions respond to students' academic, social, and emotional needs and address the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus on the student subgroups described in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(xi) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(B)(xi)), students experiencing homelessness, and children and youth in foster care; and (2) shall use the remaining funds for any of the following: (A) Any activity authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. (B) Any activity authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (C) Any activity authorized by the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act. (D) Any activity authorized by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006. (E) Coordination of preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies with State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health departments, and other relevant agencies, to improve coordinated responses among such entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. (F) Activities to address the unique needs of low-income children or students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and foster care youth, including how outreach and service delivery will meet the needs of each population. (G) Developing and implementing procedures and systems to improve the preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies. (H) Training and professional development for staff of the local educational agency on sanitation and minimizing the spread of infectious diseases. (I) Purchasing supplies to sanitize and clean the facilities of a local educational agency, including buildings operated by such agency. (J) Planning for, coordinating, and implementing activities during long-term closures, including providing meals to eligible students, providing technology for online learning to all students, providing guidance for carrying out requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and ensuring other educational services can H. R. 1319?18 continue to be provided consistent with all Federal, State, and local requirements. (K) Purchasing educational technology (including hardware, software, and connectivity) for students who are served by the local educational agency that aids in regular and substantive educational interaction between students and their classroom instructors, including low-income students and children with disabilities, which may include assistive technology or adaptive equipment. (L) Providing mental health services and supports, including through the implementation of evidence-based full-service community schools. (M) Planning and implementing activities related to summer learning and supplemental afterschool programs, including providing classroom instruction or online learning during the summer months and addressing the needs of low-income students, children with disabilities, English learners, migrant students, students experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care. (N) Addressing learning loss among students, including low-income students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and children and youth in foster care, of the local educational agency, including by? (i) administering and using high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable, to accurately assess students' academic progress and assist educators in meeting students' academic needs, including through differentiating instruction; (ii) implementing evidence-based activities to meet the comprehensive needs of students; (iii) providing information and assistance to parents and families on how they can effectively support students, including in a distance learning environment; and (iv) tracking student attendance and improving student engagement in distance education. (O) School facility repairs and improvements to enable operation of schools to reduce risk of virus transmission and exposure to environmental health hazards, and to support student health needs. (P) Inspection, testing, maintenance, repair, replacement, and upgrade projects to improve the indoor air quality in school facilities, including mechanical and nonmechanical heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, filtering, purification and other air cleaning, fans, control systems, and window and door repair and replacement. (Q) Developing strategies and implementing public health protocols including, to the greatest extent practicable, policies in line with guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the reopening and operation of school facilities to effectively maintain the health and safety of students, educators, and other staff. H. R. 1319?19 (R) Other activities that are necessary to maintain the operation of and continuity of services in local educational agencies and continuing to employ existing staff of the local educational agency." Cause The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal control that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit related to the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. Effect The failure to retain and provide appropriate supporting documentation prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the compliance requirements listed above. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $15,787 were identified as noted in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to ensure that documentation will be maintained and made available for audit related to the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-003 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Number: 84.425 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): S425D200013, S425D210013, S425U210013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Significant Deficiency, Other Matters Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. The Education Stabilization Fund established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act and further funded by the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act (CRSSA) and the American Rescue Plan (ARP) Act was for the purpose of preventing, preparing for, or responding to the Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). During fiscal year 2020-2021, 2 of 40 vendor claims tested and 4 of 13 payroll claims tested paid for supplies, services, and payroll without an explanation for how the expenditures prevented, prepared for, or responded to COVID-19. The total of unsupported expenditures for DJ services, gaming chairs, and additional payroll and stipends was $15,787. These amounts were considered questioned costs. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The Non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.404 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. . . ." Public Law 116-136, Section 18003(d) states: "USES OF FUNDS.?A local educational agency that receives funds under this title may use funds for any of the following: (1) Any activity authorized by the ESEA of 1965, including the Native Hawaiian Education Act and the Alaska Native Educational Equity, Support, and Assistance Act (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) ('IDEA'), the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.) ('the Perkins Act'), or subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.). (2) Coordination of preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies with State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health departments, and other relevant agencies, to improve coordinated responses among such entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. (3) Providing principals and others school leaders with the resources necessary to address the needs of their individual schools. (4) Activities to address the unique needs of low-income children or students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and foster care youth, including how outreach and service delivery will meet the needs of each population. (5) Developing and implementing procedures and systems to improve the preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies. (6) Training and professional development for staff of the local educational agency on sanitation and minimizing the spread of infectious diseases. (7) Purchasing supplies to sanitize and clean the facilities of a local educational agency, including buildings operated by such agency. (8) Planning for and coordinating during long-term closures, including for how to provide meals to eligible students, how to provide technology for online learning to all students, how to provide guidance for carrying out requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and how to ensure other educational services can continue to be provided consistent with all Federal, State, and local requirements. (9) Purchasing educational technology (including hardware, software, and connectivity) for students who are served by the local educational agency that aids in regular and substantive educational interaction between students and their classroom instructors, including low-income students and students with disabilities, which may include assistive technology or adaptive equipment. (10) Providing mental health services and supports. (11) Planning and implementing activities related to summer learning and supplemental afterschool programs, including providing classroom instruction or online learning during the summer months and addressing the needs of low-income students, students with disabilities, English learners, migrant students, students experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care. (12) Other activities that are necessary to maintain the operation of and continuity of services in local educational H. R. 748?287 agencies and continuing to employ existing staff of the local educational agency." Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2021, P.L. 116-260, section 313(d) states: "USES OF FUNDS.?A local educational agency that receives funds under this section may use the funds for any of the following: (1) Any activity authorized by the ESEA of 1965, including the Native Hawaiian Education Act and the Alaska Native Educational Equity, Support, and Assistance Act (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) ('IDEA'), the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.) ('the Perkins Act'), or subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.). (2) Coordination of preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies with State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health departments, and other relevant agencies, to improve coordinated responses among such entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. (3) Providing principals and others school leaders with the resources necessary to address the needs of their individual schools. (4) Activities to address the unique needs of low-income children or students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and foster care youth, including how outreach and service delivery will meet the needs of each population. (5) Developing and implementing procedures and systems to improve the preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies. (6) Training and professional development for staff of the local educational agency on sanitation and minimizing the spread of infectious diseases. (7) Purchasing supplies to sanitize and clean the facilities of a local educational agency, including buildings operated by such agency. (8) Planning for, coordinating, and implementing activities during long-term closures, including providing meals to eligible students, providing technology for online learning to all students, providing guidance for carrying out requirements under the IDEA and ensuring other educational services can continue to be provided consistent with all Federal, State, and local requirements. (9) Purchasing educational technology (including hardware, software, and connectivity) for students who are served by the local educational agency that aids in regular and substantive educational interaction between students and their classroom instructors, including low-income students and children with disabilities, which may include assistive technology or adaptive equipment. (10) Providing mental health services and supports. (11) Planning and implementing activities related to summer learning and supplemental afterschool programs, including providing classroom instruction or online learning during the summer months and addressing the needs of low-income students, children with disabilities, English learners, migrant students, students experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care. (12) Addressing learning loss among students, including low-income students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and children and youth in foster care, of the local educational agency, including by? (A) Administering and using high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable, to accurately assess students? academic progress and assist educators in meeting students? academic needs, including through differentiating instruction. (B) Implementing evidence-based activities to meet the comprehensive needs of students. (C) Providing information and assistance to parents and families on how they can effectively support students, including in a distance learning environment. (D) Tracking student attendance and improving student engagement in distance education. (13) School facility repairs and improvements to enable operation of schools to reduce risk of virus transmission and exposure to environmental health hazards, and to support student health needs. (14) Inspection, testing, maintenance, repair, replacement, and upgrade projects to improve the indoor air quality in school facilities, including mechanical and non-mechanical heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, filtering, purification and other air cleaning, fans, control systems, and window and door repair and replacement. (15) Other activities that are necessary to maintain the operation of and continuity of services in local educational agencies and continuing to employ existing staff of the local educational agency." American Rescue Plan Act of 2021, H.R. 1319, section 2001(e) states: "USES OF FUNDS.?A local educational agency that receives funds under this section? (1) shall reserve not less than 20 percent of such funds to address learning loss through the implementation of evidence-based interventions, such as summer learning or summer enrichment, extended day, comprehensive afterschool programs, or extended school year programs, and ensure that such interventions respond to students' academic, social, and emotional needs and address the disproportionate impact of the coronavirus on the student subgroups described in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(xi) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(B)(xi)), students experiencing homelessness, and children and youth in foster care; and (2) shall use the remaining funds for any of the following: (A) Any activity authorized by the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965. (B) Any activity authorized by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (C) Any activity authorized by the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act. (D) Any activity authorized by the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006. (E) Coordination of preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies with State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health departments, and other relevant agencies, to improve coordinated responses among such entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. (F) Activities to address the unique needs of low-income children or students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and foster care youth, including how outreach and service delivery will meet the needs of each population. (G) Developing and implementing procedures and systems to improve the preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies. (H) Training and professional development for staff of the local educational agency on sanitation and minimizing the spread of infectious diseases. (I) Purchasing supplies to sanitize and clean the facilities of a local educational agency, including buildings operated by such agency. (J) Planning for, coordinating, and implementing activities during long-term closures, including providing meals to eligible students, providing technology for online learning to all students, providing guidance for carrying out requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and ensuring other educational services can H. R. 1319?18 continue to be provided consistent with all Federal, State, and local requirements. (K) Purchasing educational technology (including hardware, software, and connectivity) for students who are served by the local educational agency that aids in regular and substantive educational interaction between students and their classroom instructors, including low-income students and children with disabilities, which may include assistive technology or adaptive equipment. (L) Providing mental health services and supports, including through the implementation of evidence-based full-service community schools. (M) Planning and implementing activities related to summer learning and supplemental afterschool programs, including providing classroom instruction or online learning during the summer months and addressing the needs of low-income students, children with disabilities, English learners, migrant students, students experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care. (N) Addressing learning loss among students, including low-income students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and children and youth in foster care, of the local educational agency, including by? (i) administering and using high-quality assessments that are valid and reliable, to accurately assess students' academic progress and assist educators in meeting students' academic needs, including through differentiating instruction; (ii) implementing evidence-based activities to meet the comprehensive needs of students; (iii) providing information and assistance to parents and families on how they can effectively support students, including in a distance learning environment; and (iv) tracking student attendance and improving student engagement in distance education. (O) School facility repairs and improvements to enable operation of schools to reduce risk of virus transmission and exposure to environmental health hazards, and to support student health needs. (P) Inspection, testing, maintenance, repair, replacement, and upgrade projects to improve the indoor air quality in school facilities, including mechanical and nonmechanical heating, ventilation, and air conditioning systems, filtering, purification and other air cleaning, fans, control systems, and window and door repair and replacement. (Q) Developing strategies and implementing public health protocols including, to the greatest extent practicable, policies in line with guidance from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for the reopening and operation of school facilities to effectively maintain the health and safety of students, educators, and other staff. H. R. 1319?19 (R) Other activities that are necessary to maintain the operation of and continuity of services in local educational agencies and continuing to employ existing staff of the local educational agency." Cause The School Corporation's management had not developed a system of internal control that would have ensured compliance, or that supporting documentation would have been maintained and made available for audit related to the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. Effect The failure to retain and provide appropriate supporting documentation prevented the determination of the School Corporation's compliance with the compliance requirements listed above. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs of $15,787 were identified as noted in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to ensure that documentation will be maintained and made available for audit related to the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
2022-001 Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles / Types of Services Allowed or Disallowed, Cash Management, and Reporting U.S. Department of Health and Human Services: Passed through State of New Jersey, Department of Health: COVID-19 Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (SARS-COV-2 Hospital Testing) Federal Grant Number and Years: PHLP21CHT017 (7/1/2021 ? 6/30/2022) Statistically Valid Sample: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Prior Year Findings: None Criteria: Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles / Types of Services Allowed or Disallowed - Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be adequately documented in order to be allowable under Federal awards (2 CFR Section 200.404). Cash Management - Except where otherwise authorized by statute, when non-federal entities are funded under the reimbursement method, costs must be adequately documented as paid prior to the date of the reimbursement request (2 CFR section 200.305(b)(3)) Reporting - In accordance with the grant agreement and the reporting requirements for State of New Jersey Department of Health (NJDOH), direct grants and pass-through funds are fulfilled utilizing a Report of Expenditures (ROE). ROEs are prepared and submitted quarterly in order to allow for relevant and reliable information to be provided to the Federal government or State of New Jersey for reimbursement and tracking purposes. The ROEs are the source documents for the grantee to prepare a schedule of expenditures of Federal awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the grantee?s financial statements in accordance with 2 CFR 200.502, Basis for determining Federal awards expended, for the SEFA. Additionally, in accordance with Federal requirements, a non-Federal entity shall maintain internal controls over Federal programs designed to provide reasonable assurance that transactions are executed in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award that could have a direct and material effect on a Federal program. Condition and Context: On a quarterly basis, University Hospital (the Hospital) prepares and reports to New Jersey Department of Health the program expenditures for Federal funding amounts on the ROE, which are then used to prepare the annual SEFA at the end of the fiscal year. The Hospital?s expenditures per the ROE were greater than the expenditures that were supported by the general ledger and accounting records, therefore, the Hospital submitted the ROE and claim towards the grant for reimbursement above the amount allowed by $405,971, due to a double counting of previously reimbursed costs. Further, the Hospital?s indirect costs charged were greater than the allowable amount by $3,514. The original amount reported on the SEFA by the Hospital and charged to the State was $3,142,428. The Hospital has adjusted the SEFA to account for allowable costs, which is $2,732,943. The Hospital?s policies and procedures to ensure compliance with the above compliance requirements did not include certain internal controls that were designed properly and operating effectively to ensure that the Hospital has adequate supporting accounting records for allowable costs claimed and reported on the ROE and SEFA. Cause: Management's review of the ROE did not identify the double counting of previously reimbursed costs, therefore, the review was not performed at the appropriate level of precision in accordance with its design. Effect: The Hospital overcharged the grant by $409,485. Questioned Costs: $409,485 Recommendation: We recommend that the Hospital strengthen its procedures to ensure that the quarterly ROEs include the correct amount of allowable expenditures based upon the general ledger and accounting records and reflected on the SEFA and that the review of the ROE is properly performed prior to submission for reimbursement.
FINDING 2022-007 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Number: 84.425D Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): S425D200013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. The COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was for the purpose of preventing, preparing for, and responding to Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). The School Corporation paid Classified Staff and all Administrators and Directors (Superintendent of Schools excluded) School Board approved stipends on December 11, 2020, from the program. The across-the-board stipends were paid without justification or documentation that provided for additional duties or work performed on which to base the stipends. The total amount of stipends paid, $178,800, were considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the stipend payments made from S425D200013. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.404 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. . . ." Public Law 116-136, Section 18003(d) states: "Uses of Funds. - A local educational agency that receives funds under this title may use funds for any of the following: (1) Any activity authorized by the ESEA of 1965, including the Native Hawaiian Education Act and the Alaska Native Educational Equity, Support, and Assistance Act (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) ('IDEA'), the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.) ('the Perkins Act'), or subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.). (2) Coordination of preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies with State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health departments, and other relevant agencies, to improve coordinated responses among such entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. (3) Providing principals and others school leaders with the resources necessary to address the needs of their individual schools. (4) Activities to address the unique needs of low-income children or students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and foster care youth, including how outreach and service delivery will meet the needs of each population. (5) Developing and implementing procedures and systems to improve the preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies. (6) Training and professional development for staff of the local educational agency on sanitation and minimizing the spread of infectious diseases. (7) Purchasing supplies to sanitize and clean the facilities of a local educational agency, including buildings operated by such agency. (8) Planning for and coordinating during long-term closures, including for how to provide meals to eligible students, how to provide technology for online learning to all students, how to provide guidance for carrying out requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and how to ensure other educational services can continue to be provided consistent with all Federal, State, and local requirements. (9) Purchasing educational technology (including hardware, software, and connectivity) for students who are served by the local educational agency that aids in regular and substantive educational interaction between students and their classroom instructors, including low-income students and students with disabilities, which may include assistive technology or adaptive equipment. (10) Providing mental health services and supports. (11) Planning and implementing activities related to summer learning and supplemental afterschool programs, including providing classroom instruction or online learning during the summer months and addressing the needs of low-income students, students with disabilities, English learners, migrant students, students experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care. (12) Other activities that are necessary to maintain the operation of and continuity of services in local educational H. R. 748?287 agencies and continuing to employ existing staff of the local educational agency." Cause Management had not established a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. Effect The failure to establish an effective internal control system enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs in the amount of $178,800 were identified and noted in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to ensure compliance and comply with the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2022-007 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Number: 84.425D Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): S425D200013 Pass-Through Entity: Indiana Department of Education Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context An effective internal control system was not in place at the School Corporation to ensure compliance with requirements related to the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. The COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund established by the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was for the purpose of preventing, preparing for, and responding to Novel Coronavirus (COVID-19). The School Corporation paid Classified Staff and all Administrators and Directors (Superintendent of Schools excluded) School Board approved stipends on December 11, 2020, from the program. The across-the-board stipends were paid without justification or documentation that provided for additional duties or work performed on which to base the stipends. The total amount of stipends paid, $178,800, were considered questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the stipend payments made from S425D200013. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. . . . (g) Be adequately documented. . . ." 2 CFR 200.404 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. . . ." Public Law 116-136, Section 18003(d) states: "Uses of Funds. - A local educational agency that receives funds under this title may use funds for any of the following: (1) Any activity authorized by the ESEA of 1965, including the Native Hawaiian Education Act and the Alaska Native Educational Equity, Support, and Assistance Act (20 U.S.C. 6301 et seq.), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.) ('IDEA'), the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act (20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq.), the Carl D. Perkins Career and Technical Education Act of 2006 (20 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.) ('the Perkins Act'), or subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (42 U.S.C. 11431 et seq.). (2) Coordination of preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies with State, local, Tribal, and territorial public health departments, and other relevant agencies, to improve coordinated responses among such entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. (3) Providing principals and others school leaders with the resources necessary to address the needs of their individual schools. (4) Activities to address the unique needs of low-income children or students, children with disabilities, English learners, racial and ethnic minorities, students experiencing homelessness, and foster care youth, including how outreach and service delivery will meet the needs of each population. (5) Developing and implementing procedures and systems to improve the preparedness and response efforts of local educational agencies. (6) Training and professional development for staff of the local educational agency on sanitation and minimizing the spread of infectious diseases. (7) Purchasing supplies to sanitize and clean the facilities of a local educational agency, including buildings operated by such agency. (8) Planning for and coordinating during long-term closures, including for how to provide meals to eligible students, how to provide technology for online learning to all students, how to provide guidance for carrying out requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1401 et seq.) and how to ensure other educational services can continue to be provided consistent with all Federal, State, and local requirements. (9) Purchasing educational technology (including hardware, software, and connectivity) for students who are served by the local educational agency that aids in regular and substantive educational interaction between students and their classroom instructors, including low-income students and students with disabilities, which may include assistive technology or adaptive equipment. (10) Providing mental health services and supports. (11) Planning and implementing activities related to summer learning and supplemental afterschool programs, including providing classroom instruction or online learning during the summer months and addressing the needs of low-income students, students with disabilities, English learners, migrant students, students experiencing homelessness, and children in foster care. (12) Other activities that are necessary to maintain the operation of and continuity of services in local educational H. R. 748?287 agencies and continuing to employ existing staff of the local educational agency." Cause Management had not established a system of internal controls that would have ensured compliance with the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. Effect The failure to establish an effective internal control system enabled material noncompliance to go undetected. Noncompliance with the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements could result in the loss of future federal funds to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs in the amount of $178,800 were identified and noted in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that the School Corporation's management establish internal controls to ensure compliance and comply with the grant agreement and the Activities Allowed or Unallowed and the Allowable Costs/Cost Principles compliance requirements. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FA 2022-001 Improve Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Number and Title: COVID-19 ? 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Number: S425D210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $119,600 Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over expenditures as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $6,932,136 were expended and reported on the Meriwether County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.404 ? Reasonable Costs state that ?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? (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.? Furthermore, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 ? General Procurement Standards state that ?the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations? for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward?? Condition: Auditors performed a review of expenditure activity associated with the ESSER program to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. This testing revealed that a payment was made to the staffing company utilized by the School District to provide bonuses to paraprofessional contractors who were not employees of the School District. These individuals were assigned to work within the School District by the private staffing company. Per review of the contract in place during the fiscal year under review, it was noted that these bonuses represented amounts in excess of the agreed upon rates. Furthermore, the School District does not have the authority or ability to retain these individuals as they were not employees of the School District and contract provisions requiring the individuals to remain employed by the staffing company and in the service of the School District for a stated period of time were not reflected within the associated contract. Therefore, expenditures totaling $119,600 were not considered to be reasonable and necessary for the performance of the ESSER program and deemed unallowable. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $119,600 were identified for expenditures that were not incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and did not follow the School District?s policies and procedures. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: Per discussion with management, the School District believed that the expenditures were allowable as the expenditures were approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process and no deficiencies were noted during the 2022-2023 Federal Review performed by GaDOE. Earlier in the year, a contract amendment had been drawn up to pay for ?retention incentives? to contracted workers, and the staffing company sent correspondence to the School District stating no other addendum was required. The School District was not aware that an additional contract amendment should be initiated prior to the expenditure of funds to pay for an additional bonus payment. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are followed when expending federal funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are in line with provisions reflected within the associated contract and/or contract amendments. In addition, the School District should implement a monitoring process to ensure that all expenditures are compliant with the School District?s purchasing policies and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding. FA 2022-001 Improve Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Number and Title: COVID-19 ? 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Number: S425D210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $119,600 Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over expenditures as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $6,932,136 were expended and reported on the Meriwether County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.404 ? Reasonable Costs state that ?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? (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.? Furthermore, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 ? General Procurement Standards state that ?the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations? for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward?? Condition: Auditors performed a review of expenditure activity associated with the ESSER program to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. This testing revealed that a payment was made to the staffing company utilized by the School District to provide bonuses to paraprofessional contractors who were not employees of the School District. These individuals were assigned to work within the School District by the private staffing company. Per review of the contract in place during the fiscal year under review, it was noted that these bonuses represented amounts in excess of the agreed upon rates. Furthermore, the School District does not have the authority or ability to retain these individuals as they were not employees of the School District and contract provisions requiring the individuals to remain employed by the staffing company and in the service of the School District for a stated period of time were not reflected within the associated contract. Therefore, expenditures totaling $119,600 were not considered to be reasonable and necessary for the performance of the ESSER program and deemed unallowable. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $119,600 were identified for expenditures that were not incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and did not follow the School District?s policies and procedures. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: Per discussion with management, the School District believed that the expenditures were allowable as the expenditures were approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process and no deficiencies were noted during the 2022-2023 Federal Review performed by GaDOE. Earlier in the year, a contract amendment had been drawn up to pay for ?retention incentives? to contracted workers, and the staffing company sent correspondence to the School District stating no other addendum was required. The School District was not aware that an additional contract amendment should be initiated prior to the expenditure of funds to pay for an additional bonus payment. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are followed when expending federal funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are in line with provisions reflected within the associated contract and/or contract amendments. In addition, the School District should implement a monitoring process to ensure that all expenditures are compliant with the School District?s purchasing policies and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Improve Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Number and Title: COVID-19 ? 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Number: S425D210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $119,600 Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over expenditures as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $6,932,136 were expended and reported on the Meriwether County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.404 ? Reasonable Costs state that ?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? (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.? Furthermore, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 ? General Procurement Standards state that ?the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations? for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward?? Condition: Auditors performed a review of expenditure activity associated with the ESSER program to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. This testing revealed that a payment was made to the staffing company utilized by the School District to provide bonuses to paraprofessional contractors who were not employees of the School District. These individuals were assigned to work within the School District by the private staffing company. Per review of the contract in place during the fiscal year under review, it was noted that these bonuses represented amounts in excess of the agreed upon rates. Furthermore, the School District does not have the authority or ability to retain these individuals as they were not employees of the School District and contract provisions requiring the individuals to remain employed by the staffing company and in the service of the School District for a stated period of time were not reflected within the associated contract. Therefore, expenditures totaling $119,600 were not considered to be reasonable and necessary for the performance of the ESSER program and deemed unallowable. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $119,600 were identified for expenditures that were not incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and did not follow the School District?s policies and procedures. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: Per discussion with management, the School District believed that the expenditures were allowable as the expenditures were approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process and no deficiencies were noted during the 2022-2023 Federal Review performed by GaDOE. Earlier in the year, a contract amendment had been drawn up to pay for ?retention incentives? to contracted workers, and the staffing company sent correspondence to the School District stating no other addendum was required. The School District was not aware that an additional contract amendment should be initiated prior to the expenditure of funds to pay for an additional bonus payment. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are followed when expending federal funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are in line with provisions reflected within the associated contract and/or contract amendments. In addition, the School District should implement a monitoring process to ensure that all expenditures are compliant with the School District?s purchasing policies and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding. FA 2022-001 Improve Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Number and Title: COVID-19 ? 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Number: S425D210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $119,600 Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over expenditures as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $6,932,136 were expended and reported on the Meriwether County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.404 ? Reasonable Costs state that ?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? (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.? Furthermore, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 ? General Procurement Standards state that ?the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations? for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward?? Condition: Auditors performed a review of expenditure activity associated with the ESSER program to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. This testing revealed that a payment was made to the staffing company utilized by the School District to provide bonuses to paraprofessional contractors who were not employees of the School District. These individuals were assigned to work within the School District by the private staffing company. Per review of the contract in place during the fiscal year under review, it was noted that these bonuses represented amounts in excess of the agreed upon rates. Furthermore, the School District does not have the authority or ability to retain these individuals as they were not employees of the School District and contract provisions requiring the individuals to remain employed by the staffing company and in the service of the School District for a stated period of time were not reflected within the associated contract. Therefore, expenditures totaling $119,600 were not considered to be reasonable and necessary for the performance of the ESSER program and deemed unallowable. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $119,600 were identified for expenditures that were not incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and did not follow the School District?s policies and procedures. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: Per discussion with management, the School District believed that the expenditures were allowable as the expenditures were approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process and no deficiencies were noted during the 2022-2023 Federal Review performed by GaDOE. Earlier in the year, a contract amendment had been drawn up to pay for ?retention incentives? to contracted workers, and the staffing company sent correspondence to the School District stating no other addendum was required. The School District was not aware that an additional contract amendment should be initiated prior to the expenditure of funds to pay for an additional bonus payment. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are followed when expending federal funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are in line with provisions reflected within the associated contract and/or contract amendments. In addition, the School District should implement a monitoring process to ensure that all expenditures are compliant with the School District?s purchasing policies and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Number and Title: COVID-19 ? 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Number: S425D200012 (Year: 2020) Questioned Costs: $129,375 Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over expenditures as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $16,263,786.14 were expended and reported on the Whitfield County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.404 ? Reasonable Costs state that ?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? (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.? Furthermore, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 ? General Procurement Standards state that ?the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations? for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward?? Condition: Auditors performed a review of expenditure activity associated with the ESSER program to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. This testing revealed that a payment was made to the staffing company utilized by the School District to provide ?retention? bonuses to both transportation and school nutrition contractors who were not employees of the School District. These individuals were assigned to work within the School District by the private staffing company. Per review of the contract in place during the fiscal year under review, it was noted that these bonuses represented amounts in excess of the agreed upon price. Furthermore, the School District does not have the authority or ability to retain these individuals as they were not employees of the School District and contract provisions requiring the individuals to remain employed by the private staffing company and in the service of the School District for a stated period of time was not reflected within the associated contract. Therefore, expenditures totaling $129,375 were not considered to be reasonable and necessary for the performance of the ESSER program and deemed unallowable. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $129,375 were identified for expenditures that were not incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and did not follow the School District?s policies and procedures. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: Per discussion with management, the School District believed that the expenditures were allowable as the expenditures were approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process; however, they were not aware that contract amendments should be initiated prior to the expenditure of funds in this manner. Effect or Potential Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are followed when expending federal funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are in line with provisions reflected within the associated contract and/or contract amendments. In addition, the School District should implement a monitoring process to ensure that all expenditures are compliant with the School District?s purchasing policies and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: We do not concur with this finding. The Whitfield County School District followed standard operating procedures for all federal programs? budget approval and disbursement requests with the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE). The finding was issued after GaDOE approved and paid our requested expenses. Auditor?s Concluding Remarks: School District personnel state that the School District ?followed standard operating procedures for all federal programs? budget approval and disbursement requests with the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE).? Though GaDOE approved a budget that included the bonuses, the School District was still expected and required to comply with federal regulations associated with the federal program. When each federal program budget is submitted to GaDOE, School District management signs assurances certifying that ?each program will be administered in accordance with all applicable statutes, regulations, program plans, and applications? and that the School District will ?maintain adequate internal controls in the procurement process for goods and services in accordance with Georgia?s Financial Management for Georgia LUAS Manual.? As noted previously, the School District did not follow appropriate procurement policies and procedures and paid amounts beyond those allowed per the contract in place during the fiscal year under review. Additionally, auditors contacted ED?s ESSER program management to discuss the allowability of these bonus payments as ED is the grantor of the funds and the cognizant agency charged with administering the ESSER program. Officials at ED advised auditors that bonuses may be allowable if such bonuses are reflected within the contract; however, as noted previously, no such contract provisions were present. Moreover, ED emphasized that published guidance associated with the issuance of bonuses or premium pay from ESSER funds pertained to school personnel, not contractors. We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the finding during our next audit.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Number and Title: COVID-19 ? 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Number: S425D200012 (Year: 2020) Questioned Costs: $129,375 Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over expenditures as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $16,263,786.14 were expended and reported on the Whitfield County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.404 ? Reasonable Costs state that ?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? (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.? Furthermore, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 ? General Procurement Standards state that ?the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations? for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward?? Condition: Auditors performed a review of expenditure activity associated with the ESSER program to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. This testing revealed that a payment was made to the staffing company utilized by the School District to provide ?retention? bonuses to both transportation and school nutrition contractors who were not employees of the School District. These individuals were assigned to work within the School District by the private staffing company. Per review of the contract in place during the fiscal year under review, it was noted that these bonuses represented amounts in excess of the agreed upon price. Furthermore, the School District does not have the authority or ability to retain these individuals as they were not employees of the School District and contract provisions requiring the individuals to remain employed by the private staffing company and in the service of the School District for a stated period of time was not reflected within the associated contract. Therefore, expenditures totaling $129,375 were not considered to be reasonable and necessary for the performance of the ESSER program and deemed unallowable. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $129,375 were identified for expenditures that were not incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and did not follow the School District?s policies and procedures. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: Per discussion with management, the School District believed that the expenditures were allowable as the expenditures were approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process; however, they were not aware that contract amendments should be initiated prior to the expenditure of funds in this manner. Effect or Potential Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are followed when expending federal funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are in line with provisions reflected within the associated contract and/or contract amendments. In addition, the School District should implement a monitoring process to ensure that all expenditures are compliant with the School District?s purchasing policies and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: We do not concur with this finding. The Whitfield County School District followed standard operating procedures for all federal programs? budget approval and disbursement requests with the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE). The finding was issued after GaDOE approved and paid our requested expenses. Auditor?s Concluding Remarks: School District personnel state that the School District ?followed standard operating procedures for all federal programs? budget approval and disbursement requests with the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE).? Though GaDOE approved a budget that included the bonuses, the School District was still expected and required to comply with federal regulations associated with the federal program. When each federal program budget is submitted to GaDOE, School District management signs assurances certifying that ?each program will be administered in accordance with all applicable statutes, regulations, program plans, and applications? and that the School District will ?maintain adequate internal controls in the procurement process for goods and services in accordance with Georgia?s Financial Management for Georgia LUAS Manual.? As noted previously, the School District did not follow appropriate procurement policies and procedures and paid amounts beyond those allowed per the contract in place during the fiscal year under review. Additionally, auditors contacted ED?s ESSER program management to discuss the allowability of these bonus payments as ED is the grantor of the funds and the cognizant agency charged with administering the ESSER program. Officials at ED advised auditors that bonuses may be allowable if such bonuses are reflected within the contract; however, as noted previously, no such contract provisions were present. Moreover, ED emphasized that published guidance associated with the issuance of bonuses or premium pay from ESSER funds pertained to school personnel, not contractors. We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the finding during our next audit.
FA 2022-001 Strengthen Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Number and Title: COVID-19 ? 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Number: S425D200012 (Year: 2020) Questioned Costs: $129,375 Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over expenditures as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $16,263,786.14 were expended and reported on the Whitfield County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.404 ? Reasonable Costs state that ?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? (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.? Furthermore, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 ? General Procurement Standards state that ?the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations? for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward?? Condition: Auditors performed a review of expenditure activity associated with the ESSER program to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. This testing revealed that a payment was made to the staffing company utilized by the School District to provide ?retention? bonuses to both transportation and school nutrition contractors who were not employees of the School District. These individuals were assigned to work within the School District by the private staffing company. Per review of the contract in place during the fiscal year under review, it was noted that these bonuses represented amounts in excess of the agreed upon price. Furthermore, the School District does not have the authority or ability to retain these individuals as they were not employees of the School District and contract provisions requiring the individuals to remain employed by the private staffing company and in the service of the School District for a stated period of time was not reflected within the associated contract. Therefore, expenditures totaling $129,375 were not considered to be reasonable and necessary for the performance of the ESSER program and deemed unallowable. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $129,375 were identified for expenditures that were not incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and did not follow the School District?s policies and procedures. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: Per discussion with management, the School District believed that the expenditures were allowable as the expenditures were approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process; however, they were not aware that contract amendments should be initiated prior to the expenditure of funds in this manner. Effect or Potential Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are followed when expending federal funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are in line with provisions reflected within the associated contract and/or contract amendments. In addition, the School District should implement a monitoring process to ensure that all expenditures are compliant with the School District?s purchasing policies and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: We do not concur with this finding. The Whitfield County School District followed standard operating procedures for all federal programs? budget approval and disbursement requests with the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE). The finding was issued after GaDOE approved and paid our requested expenses. Auditor?s Concluding Remarks: School District personnel state that the School District ?followed standard operating procedures for all federal programs? budget approval and disbursement requests with the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE).? Though GaDOE approved a budget that included the bonuses, the School District was still expected and required to comply with federal regulations associated with the federal program. When each federal program budget is submitted to GaDOE, School District management signs assurances certifying that ?each program will be administered in accordance with all applicable statutes, regulations, program plans, and applications? and that the School District will ?maintain adequate internal controls in the procurement process for goods and services in accordance with Georgia?s Financial Management for Georgia LUAS Manual.? As noted previously, the School District did not follow appropriate procurement policies and procedures and paid amounts beyond those allowed per the contract in place during the fiscal year under review. Additionally, auditors contacted ED?s ESSER program management to discuss the allowability of these bonus payments as ED is the grantor of the funds and the cognizant agency charged with administering the ESSER program. Officials at ED advised auditors that bonuses may be allowable if such bonuses are reflected within the contract; however, as noted previously, no such contract provisions were present. Moreover, ED emphasized that published guidance associated with the issuance of bonuses or premium pay from ESSER funds pertained to school personnel, not contractors. We reaffirm our finding and will review the status of the finding during our next audit.
FA 2022 - 001 Improve Controls over Federal Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 ? 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 ? 84.425U ? American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $221,797 Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over expenditures as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $4,435,698 were expended and reported on the Long County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.404 ? Reasonable Costs state that ?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? (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.? Furthermore, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 ? General Procurement Standards state that ?the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations? for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward?? Condition: Auditors performed a review of expenditure activity associated with the ESSER program to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. This testing revealed that a payment was made to the staffing services company utilized by the School District to provide bonuses to contractors who were not employees of the School District. These individuals were assigned to work within the School District by the private staffing services company. Per review of the contract in place during the fiscal year under review, it was noted that these bonuses represented amounts in excess of the agreed upon price. Therefore, expenditures totaling $108,960 were not considered to be reasonable and necessary for the performance of the ESSER program and deemed unallowable. In addition, a review of indirect cost amounts charged to the ESSER fund revealed that the total indirect cost amount budgeted by the School District, which totaled $406,623, was recorded as indirect cost expenditures during the period under review. However, the School District should have applied the indirect cost rate approved by the GaDOE to actual expenditures incurred during the fiscal year to calculate a maximum indirect cost amount of $293,786. Therefore, unallowable indirect costs totaling $112,837 were recorded within the ESSER fund. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $221,797 were identified for expenditures that were not incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and did not follow the School District?s policies and procedures. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: Per discussion with management, the School District believed that the contractor bonuses were allowable as the expenditures were approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process. In addition, management was unaware that indirect costs charged against the program must be based on actual and eligible expenditures incurred rather than the total budgeted amount approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are followed when expending federal funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are in line with provisions reflected within the associated contract and/or contract amendments and indirect cost amounts are based on actual expenditures rather than budget data. In addition, the School District should implement a monitoring process to ensure that all expenditures are compliant with the School District?s policies and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022 - 001 Improve Controls over Federal Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 ? 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 ? 84.425U ? American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $221,797 Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over expenditures as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $4,435,698 were expended and reported on the Long County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.404 ? Reasonable Costs state that ?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? (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.? Furthermore, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 ? General Procurement Standards state that ?the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations? for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward?? Condition: Auditors performed a review of expenditure activity associated with the ESSER program to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. This testing revealed that a payment was made to the staffing services company utilized by the School District to provide bonuses to contractors who were not employees of the School District. These individuals were assigned to work within the School District by the private staffing services company. Per review of the contract in place during the fiscal year under review, it was noted that these bonuses represented amounts in excess of the agreed upon price. Therefore, expenditures totaling $108,960 were not considered to be reasonable and necessary for the performance of the ESSER program and deemed unallowable. In addition, a review of indirect cost amounts charged to the ESSER fund revealed that the total indirect cost amount budgeted by the School District, which totaled $406,623, was recorded as indirect cost expenditures during the period under review. However, the School District should have applied the indirect cost rate approved by the GaDOE to actual expenditures incurred during the fiscal year to calculate a maximum indirect cost amount of $293,786. Therefore, unallowable indirect costs totaling $112,837 were recorded within the ESSER fund. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $221,797 were identified for expenditures that were not incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and did not follow the School District?s policies and procedures. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: Per discussion with management, the School District believed that the contractor bonuses were allowable as the expenditures were approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process. In addition, management was unaware that indirect costs charged against the program must be based on actual and eligible expenditures incurred rather than the total budgeted amount approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are followed when expending federal funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are in line with provisions reflected within the associated contract and/or contract amendments and indirect cost amounts are based on actual expenditures rather than budget data. In addition, the School District should implement a monitoring process to ensure that all expenditures are compliant with the School District?s policies and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022 - 001 Improve Controls over Federal Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 ? 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 ? 84.425U ? American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $221,797 Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over expenditures as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $4,435,698 were expended and reported on the Long County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.404 ? Reasonable Costs state that ?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? (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.? Furthermore, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 ? General Procurement Standards state that ?the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations? for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward?? Condition: Auditors performed a review of expenditure activity associated with the ESSER program to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. This testing revealed that a payment was made to the staffing services company utilized by the School District to provide bonuses to contractors who were not employees of the School District. These individuals were assigned to work within the School District by the private staffing services company. Per review of the contract in place during the fiscal year under review, it was noted that these bonuses represented amounts in excess of the agreed upon price. Therefore, expenditures totaling $108,960 were not considered to be reasonable and necessary for the performance of the ESSER program and deemed unallowable. In addition, a review of indirect cost amounts charged to the ESSER fund revealed that the total indirect cost amount budgeted by the School District, which totaled $406,623, was recorded as indirect cost expenditures during the period under review. However, the School District should have applied the indirect cost rate approved by the GaDOE to actual expenditures incurred during the fiscal year to calculate a maximum indirect cost amount of $293,786. Therefore, unallowable indirect costs totaling $112,837 were recorded within the ESSER fund. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $221,797 were identified for expenditures that were not incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and did not follow the School District?s policies and procedures. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: Per discussion with management, the School District believed that the contractor bonuses were allowable as the expenditures were approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process. In addition, management was unaware that indirect costs charged against the program must be based on actual and eligible expenditures incurred rather than the total budgeted amount approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are followed when expending federal funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are in line with provisions reflected within the associated contract and/or contract amendments and indirect cost amounts are based on actual expenditures rather than budget data. In addition, the School District should implement a monitoring process to ensure that all expenditures are compliant with the School District?s policies and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
2022 ? 003 Allowable Activities and Costs - Payroll Disbursements Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Centers for Disease Control and Prevention U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Federal Program Name: COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) COVID-19 Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (ELC) Child Support Enforcement Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 93.323 93.563 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 1505-0271 - 2021 6NU50CK000539-01-08 DHHS-CDC - 2020 Pass-Through Agency: California Department of Public Health Heluna Health California Department of Child Support Services Pass-Through Number(s): COVID-19ELC29 and COVID-19ELC87 0187.3380 21-06 Award Period: May 26, 2021 - December 31, 2026 May 18, 2020 - November 17, 2022 and January 15, 2021 - July 31, 2023 May 1, 2020 - March 31, 2022 July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022 Type of Finding: ? Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance ? Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: According to the Assistance Listing Description for CSLFRF and ELC, Subpart D, Post Federal; Award Requirements and Subpart E, Cost Principles apply to the assistance listing. According to the LCSA Fiscal and Administrative Policy Manual Revised 2021, costs allowable for reimbursement under the Child Support IV-D award are governed by federal regulations. Title 2, ?200.403, ?200.404, and Title 45, Part 304 provide general guidelines for determining cost allowability. According to ? 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to ? 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to ? 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to ? 200.430 Compensation?personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: 1. Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; 2. Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and 3. Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to ? 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: Unknown Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
2022 ? 003 Allowable Activities and Costs - Payroll Disbursements Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Centers for Disease Control and Prevention U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Federal Program Name: COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) COVID-19 Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (ELC) Child Support Enforcement Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 93.323 93.563 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 1505-0271 - 2021 6NU50CK000539-01-08 DHHS-CDC - 2020 Pass-Through Agency: California Department of Public Health Heluna Health California Department of Child Support Services Pass-Through Number(s): COVID-19ELC29 and COVID-19ELC87 0187.3380 21-06 Award Period: May 26, 2021 - December 31, 2026 May 18, 2020 - November 17, 2022 and January 15, 2021 - July 31, 2023 May 1, 2020 - March 31, 2022 July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022 Type of Finding: ? Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance ? Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: According to the Assistance Listing Description for CSLFRF and ELC, Subpart D, Post Federal; Award Requirements and Subpart E, Cost Principles apply to the assistance listing. According to the LCSA Fiscal and Administrative Policy Manual Revised 2021, costs allowable for reimbursement under the Child Support IV-D award are governed by federal regulations. Title 2, ?200.403, ?200.404, and Title 45, Part 304 provide general guidelines for determining cost allowability. According to ? 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to ? 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to ? 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to ? 200.430 Compensation?personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: 1. Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; 2. Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and 3. Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to ? 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: Unknown Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
2022 ? 003 Allowable Activities and Costs - Payroll Disbursements Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Treasury Centers for Disease Control and Prevention U.S. Department of Health & Human Services Federal Program Name: COVID-19 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) COVID-19 Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (ELC) Child Support Enforcement Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 93.323 93.563 Federal Award Identification Number and Year: 1505-0271 - 2021 6NU50CK000539-01-08 DHHS-CDC - 2020 Pass-Through Agency: California Department of Public Health Heluna Health California Department of Child Support Services Pass-Through Number(s): COVID-19ELC29 and COVID-19ELC87 0187.3380 21-06 Award Period: May 26, 2021 - December 31, 2026 May 18, 2020 - November 17, 2022 and January 15, 2021 - July 31, 2023 May 1, 2020 - March 31, 2022 July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022 Type of Finding: ? Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance ? Other Matters Criteria or specific requirement: According to the Assistance Listing Description for CSLFRF and ELC, Subpart D, Post Federal; Award Requirements and Subpart E, Cost Principles apply to the assistance listing. According to the LCSA Fiscal and Administrative Policy Manual Revised 2021, costs allowable for reimbursement under the Child Support IV-D award are governed by federal regulations. Title 2, ?200.403, ?200.404, and Title 45, Part 304 provide general guidelines for determining cost allowability. According to ? 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to ? 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to ? 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to ? 200.430 Compensation?personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: 1. Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; 2. Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and 3. Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to ? 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: Unknown Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
2022-054 Department of Human Services/Oregon Health Authority Improve controls over payments for Medicaid clients Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Number and Name: 93.777 and 93.778 Medicaid Cluster Federal Award Numbers and Years: 2105OR5MAP, 2021; 2105OR5ADM, 2021; 2205OR5MAP, 2022; 2205OR5ADM, 2022 Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency; Noncompliance Prior Year Finding: N/A Questioned Costs: N/A Criteria: 2 CFR 200.1(1); 2 CFR 200.400(a); 2 CFR 200.404; 42 CFR ? 433.32(a) Federal regulations only allow the Medicaid program to charge allowable program expenditures at the federal financial participation rate for various program costs at the time of payment for services provided. The Department of Human Services (department) and the Oregon Health Authority (authority) make payments to service providers through the Jsystems system. We randomly sampled 61 clients and one Medicaid service payment associated with each client using a statistically valid sample. We reviewed agency documentation to test compliance with the Activities Allowed or Unallowed & Allowable Cost requirements. For 1 client, we found the issues described below. ? The claim selected as our sample item did not have mileage accurately calculated, which resulted in an overpayment. Further review of payments for this client identified additional inaccurate payments during the fiscal year for mileage to this provider. Questioned costs identified for our sample item resulted in an overpayment of $6.00 and other identified questioned costs resulted in an underpayment of ($5.27). The above issues occurred due to human error when entering mileage into the state payment system from the home care worker mileage tracking software (OR-PTC), which lead to improper payments. Phase 1 of the OR-PTC system was implemented in September of 2021. During this phase of the implementation branches must run a report of mileage claims and enter these claims manually into the payment system. Due to the exceptions noted above, we reviewed all clients within our sample for the fiscal year which had mileage entered into the OR-PTC system and identified multiple additional underpayments and overpayments that resulted in an overall underpayment of ($49.07). Due to the systemic nature of this issue, we are unable to reasonably estimate or quantify remaining potential questioned costs outside of our sample population. We recommend department and authority management strengthen controls over the OR-PTC system to ensure transactions are adequately supported and reviewed.
2022-055 Department of Human Services/Oregon Health Authority Strengthen review over direct costs charged to the program Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Number and Name: 93.777 and 93.778 Medicaid Cluster Federal Award Numbers and Years: 2105OR5MAP, 2021; 2105OR5ADM, 2021; 2205OR5MAP, 2022; 2205OR5ADM, 2022 Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency; Noncompliance Prior Year Finding: N/A Questioned Costs: $47,942 (known) Criteria: 2 CFR 200.1(1); 2 CFR 200.400(a); 2 CFR 200.404; 42 CFR ? 433.32(a) Federal regulations only allow the Medicaid program to charge allowable program expenditures at the federal financial participation rate for various program costs at the time of payment for services provided. The Department of Human Services (department) and the Oregon Health Authority (authority) make payments to vendors other than providers through the state?s accounting system. We judgmentally selected payments to 28 vendors for our review. We identified the following 2 errors, which were not identified during their review process, that resulted in improper payment of Medicaid expenditures: ? Payments to one vendor charged expenditures related to a specific project unrelated to the Medicaid program, resulting in known federally funded questioned costs of $1,361. ? For one payment management was unable to provide a contract or support for bids collected for the project charged to the Medicaid program, resulting in known federally funded questioned costs of $46,581. The above issues occurred due to human error and inadequate record maintenance which could lead to unallowed activities/costs being charged to the Medicaid program. We recommend department and authority management strengthen controls over review to ensure transactions are adequately supported and reviewed. Additionally, we recommend the authority reimburse the federal agency for unallowable costs.
2022-054 Department of Human Services/Oregon Health Authority Improve controls over payments for Medicaid clients Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Number and Name: 93.777 and 93.778 Medicaid Cluster Federal Award Numbers and Years: 2105OR5MAP, 2021; 2105OR5ADM, 2021; 2205OR5MAP, 2022; 2205OR5ADM, 2022 Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency; Noncompliance Prior Year Finding: N/A Questioned Costs: N/A Criteria: 2 CFR 200.1(1); 2 CFR 200.400(a); 2 CFR 200.404; 42 CFR ? 433.32(a) Federal regulations only allow the Medicaid program to charge allowable program expenditures at the federal financial participation rate for various program costs at the time of payment for services provided. The Department of Human Services (department) and the Oregon Health Authority (authority) make payments to service providers through the Jsystems system. We randomly sampled 61 clients and one Medicaid service payment associated with each client using a statistically valid sample. We reviewed agency documentation to test compliance with the Activities Allowed or Unallowed & Allowable Cost requirements. For 1 client, we found the issues described below. ? The claim selected as our sample item did not have mileage accurately calculated, which resulted in an overpayment. Further review of payments for this client identified additional inaccurate payments during the fiscal year for mileage to this provider. Questioned costs identified for our sample item resulted in an overpayment of $6.00 and other identified questioned costs resulted in an underpayment of ($5.27). The above issues occurred due to human error when entering mileage into the state payment system from the home care worker mileage tracking software (OR-PTC), which lead to improper payments. Phase 1 of the OR-PTC system was implemented in September of 2021. During this phase of the implementation branches must run a report of mileage claims and enter these claims manually into the payment system. Due to the exceptions noted above, we reviewed all clients within our sample for the fiscal year which had mileage entered into the OR-PTC system and identified multiple additional underpayments and overpayments that resulted in an overall underpayment of ($49.07). Due to the systemic nature of this issue, we are unable to reasonably estimate or quantify remaining potential questioned costs outside of our sample population. We recommend department and authority management strengthen controls over the OR-PTC system to ensure transactions are adequately supported and reviewed.
2022-055 Department of Human Services/Oregon Health Authority Strengthen review over direct costs charged to the program Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Assistance Listing Number and Name: 93.777 and 93.778 Medicaid Cluster Federal Award Numbers and Years: 2105OR5MAP, 2021; 2105OR5ADM, 2021; 2205OR5MAP, 2022; 2205OR5ADM, 2022 Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency; Noncompliance Prior Year Finding: N/A Questioned Costs: $47,942 (known) Criteria: 2 CFR 200.1(1); 2 CFR 200.400(a); 2 CFR 200.404; 42 CFR ? 433.32(a) Federal regulations only allow the Medicaid program to charge allowable program expenditures at the federal financial participation rate for various program costs at the time of payment for services provided. The Department of Human Services (department) and the Oregon Health Authority (authority) make payments to vendors other than providers through the state?s accounting system. We judgmentally selected payments to 28 vendors for our review. We identified the following 2 errors, which were not identified during their review process, that resulted in improper payment of Medicaid expenditures: ? Payments to one vendor charged expenditures related to a specific project unrelated to the Medicaid program, resulting in known federally funded questioned costs of $1,361. ? For one payment management was unable to provide a contract or support for bids collected for the project charged to the Medicaid program, resulting in known federally funded questioned costs of $46,581. The above issues occurred due to human error and inadequate record maintenance which could lead to unallowed activities/costs being charged to the Medicaid program. We recommend department and authority management strengthen controls over review to ensure transactions are adequately supported and reviewed. Additionally, we recommend the authority reimburse the federal agency for unallowable costs.
FA 2022-001 Improve Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 ? 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 ? 84.425U ? American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $358,390 Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over expenditures as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $14,705,523 were expended and reported on the Barrow County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.404 ? Reasonable Costs state that ?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? (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.? Furthermore, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 ? General Procurement Standards state that ?the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations? for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward?? Condition: Auditors performed a review of expenditure activity associated with the ESSER program to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. This testing revealed that ?retention? bonuses were paid to individuals who were not employees of the School District. These individuals were hired to perform specific functions as detailed within the associated contracts and were paid amounts in excess of the stated rate noted within these contracts. Additionally, the School District does not have the authority or ability to retain these individuals as they were not employees of the School District and contract provisions requiring the individuals to remain in the service of the School District for a stated period of time was not reflected within the associated contract. Furthermore, auditors contacted ED?s ESSER program management to discuss the allowability of these bonus payments as ED is the grantor of the funds and the cognizant agency charged with administering the ESSER program. Officials at ED advised auditors that bonuses may be allowable if such bonuses are reflected within the contract; however, as noted previously, no such contract provisions were present. Moreover, ED emphasized that published guidance associated with the issuance of bonuses or premium pay from ESSER funds pertained to school personnel, not contractors. Therefore, based upon this information, auditors determined that expenditures totaling $358,390 were not reasonable and necessary for the performance of the ESSER program and deemed these expenditures to be unallowable. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $358,390 were identified for expenditures that were not incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and did not follow the School District?s policies and procedures. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: Per discussion with management, the School District believed that the expenditures were allowable as the expenditures were approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process; however, they were not aware that contract amendments should be initiated prior to the expenditure of funds in this manner. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are followed when expending federal funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are in line with provisions reflected within the associated contract and/or contract amendments. In addition, the School District should implement a monitoring process to ensure that all expenditures are compliant with the School District?s purchasing policies and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Improve Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 ? 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 ? 84.425U ? American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $358,390 Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over expenditures as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $14,705,523 were expended and reported on the Barrow County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.404 ? Reasonable Costs state that ?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? (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.? Furthermore, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 ? General Procurement Standards state that ?the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations? for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward?? Condition: Auditors performed a review of expenditure activity associated with the ESSER program to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. This testing revealed that ?retention? bonuses were paid to individuals who were not employees of the School District. These individuals were hired to perform specific functions as detailed within the associated contracts and were paid amounts in excess of the stated rate noted within these contracts. Additionally, the School District does not have the authority or ability to retain these individuals as they were not employees of the School District and contract provisions requiring the individuals to remain in the service of the School District for a stated period of time was not reflected within the associated contract. Furthermore, auditors contacted ED?s ESSER program management to discuss the allowability of these bonus payments as ED is the grantor of the funds and the cognizant agency charged with administering the ESSER program. Officials at ED advised auditors that bonuses may be allowable if such bonuses are reflected within the contract; however, as noted previously, no such contract provisions were present. Moreover, ED emphasized that published guidance associated with the issuance of bonuses or premium pay from ESSER funds pertained to school personnel, not contractors. Therefore, based upon this information, auditors determined that expenditures totaling $358,390 were not reasonable and necessary for the performance of the ESSER program and deemed these expenditures to be unallowable. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $358,390 were identified for expenditures that were not incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and did not follow the School District?s policies and procedures. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: Per discussion with management, the School District believed that the expenditures were allowable as the expenditures were approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process; however, they were not aware that contract amendments should be initiated prior to the expenditure of funds in this manner. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are followed when expending federal funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are in line with provisions reflected within the associated contract and/or contract amendments. In addition, the School District should implement a monitoring process to ensure that all expenditures are compliant with the School District?s purchasing policies and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Improve Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 ? 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 ? 84.425U ? American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $358,390 Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over expenditures as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $14,705,523 were expended and reported on the Barrow County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.404 ? Reasonable Costs state that ?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? (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.? Furthermore, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 ? General Procurement Standards state that ?the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations? for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward?? Condition: Auditors performed a review of expenditure activity associated with the ESSER program to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. This testing revealed that ?retention? bonuses were paid to individuals who were not employees of the School District. These individuals were hired to perform specific functions as detailed within the associated contracts and were paid amounts in excess of the stated rate noted within these contracts. Additionally, the School District does not have the authority or ability to retain these individuals as they were not employees of the School District and contract provisions requiring the individuals to remain in the service of the School District for a stated period of time was not reflected within the associated contract. Furthermore, auditors contacted ED?s ESSER program management to discuss the allowability of these bonus payments as ED is the grantor of the funds and the cognizant agency charged with administering the ESSER program. Officials at ED advised auditors that bonuses may be allowable if such bonuses are reflected within the contract; however, as noted previously, no such contract provisions were present. Moreover, ED emphasized that published guidance associated with the issuance of bonuses or premium pay from ESSER funds pertained to school personnel, not contractors. Therefore, based upon this information, auditors determined that expenditures totaling $358,390 were not reasonable and necessary for the performance of the ESSER program and deemed these expenditures to be unallowable. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $358,390 were identified for expenditures that were not incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and did not follow the School District?s policies and procedures. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: Per discussion with management, the School District believed that the expenditures were allowable as the expenditures were approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process; however, they were not aware that contract amendments should be initiated prior to the expenditure of funds in this manner. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are followed when expending federal funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are in line with provisions reflected within the associated contract and/or contract amendments. In addition, the School District should implement a monitoring process to ensure that all expenditures are compliant with the School District?s purchasing policies and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
FA 2022-001 Improve Controls over Expenditures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agency: U.S. Department of Education Pass-Through Entity: Georgia Department of Education AL Numbers and Titles: COVID-19 ? 84.425D ? Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund COVID-19 ? 84.425U ? American Rescue Plan Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund Federal Award Numbers: S425D200012 (Year: 2020), S425D210012 (Year: 2021), S425U210012 (Year: 2021) Questioned Costs: $358,390 Description: The policies and procedures of the School District were insufficient to provide adequate internal controls over expenditures as it relates to the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund program. Background: On March 27, 2020, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act was signed into law. The CARES Act was designed to mitigate the economic effects of the COVID-19 pandemic in a variety of ways, including providing additional funding for local educational agencies (LEAs) navigating the impact of the COVID-19 outbreak. Provisions included in Title VIII of the CARES Act created the Education Stabilization Fund to provide financial resources to educational entities to prevent, prepare for, and respond to coronavirus. The CARES Act allocated $30.75 billion, the Coronavirus Response and Relief Supplemental Appropriations Act allocated an additional $81.9 billion, and the American Rescue Plan Act added $165.1 billion in funding to the Education Stabilization Fund. Multiple Education Stabilization Fund subprograms were created and allotted funding through the various COVID-19-related legislation. Of these programs, the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund was created to address the impact that COVID-19 has had, and continues to have, on elementary and secondary schools across the nation. ESSER funding was granted to the Georgia Department of Education (GaDOE) by the U.S. Department of Education (ED). GaDOE is responsible for distributing funds to LEAs and overseeing the expenditure of funds by LEAs. ESSER funds totaling $14,705,523 were expended and reported on the Barrow County Board of Education?s Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for fiscal year 2022. Criteria: As a recipient of federal awards, the School District is required to establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provides reasonable assurance of managing the federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards pursuant to Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance), Section 200.303 ? Internal Controls. Provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.403 ? Factors Affecting Allowability of Costs state that ?costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles, (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items, (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non-Federal entity? (g) Be adequately documented?? In addition, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.404 ? Reasonable Costs state that ?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? (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.? Furthermore, provisions included in the Uniform Guidance, Section 200.318 ? General Procurement Standards state that ?the non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations? for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward?? Condition: Auditors performed a review of expenditure activity associated with the ESSER program to determine if appropriate internal controls were implemented and applicable compliance requirements were met. This testing revealed that ?retention? bonuses were paid to individuals who were not employees of the School District. These individuals were hired to perform specific functions as detailed within the associated contracts and were paid amounts in excess of the stated rate noted within these contracts. Additionally, the School District does not have the authority or ability to retain these individuals as they were not employees of the School District and contract provisions requiring the individuals to remain in the service of the School District for a stated period of time was not reflected within the associated contract. Furthermore, auditors contacted ED?s ESSER program management to discuss the allowability of these bonus payments as ED is the grantor of the funds and the cognizant agency charged with administering the ESSER program. Officials at ED advised auditors that bonuses may be allowable if such bonuses are reflected within the contract; however, as noted previously, no such contract provisions were present. Moreover, ED emphasized that published guidance associated with the issuance of bonuses or premium pay from ESSER funds pertained to school personnel, not contractors. Therefore, based upon this information, auditors determined that expenditures totaling $358,390 were not reasonable and necessary for the performance of the ESSER program and deemed these expenditures to be unallowable. Questioned Costs: Known questioned costs of $358,390 were identified for expenditures that were not incurred for a necessary and reasonable purpose and did not follow the School District?s policies and procedures. These known questioned costs related to expenditures that were not tested as part of a sample, and therefore, should not be projected to a population to determine likely questioned costs. Cause: Per discussion with management, the School District believed that the expenditures were allowable as the expenditures were approved by GaDOE through the Consolidated Application process; however, they were not aware that contract amendments should be initiated prior to the expenditure of funds in this manner. Effect: The School District is not in compliance with the Uniform Guidance, ED, or GaDOE guidance related to the ESSER program. Failure to ensure that appropriate policies and procedures are followed when expending federal funds may expose the School District to unnecessary financial strains and shortages as GaDOE may require the School District to return funds associated with unallowable expenditures. Recommendation: The School District should review current internal control procedures related to ESSER program expenditures. Where vulnerable, the School District should develop and/or modify its policies and procedures to ensure that expenditures are in line with provisions reflected within the associated contract and/or contract amendments. In addition, the School District should implement a monitoring process to ensure that all expenditures are compliant with the School District?s purchasing policies and procedures. Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with this finding.
Finding: The District improperly awarded a retention bonus to an ineligible employee. Criteria: When the U.S. Department of Education (ED) awarded ESSER I, II and III funds to states it noted the funds ?generally will not be used for bonuses, merit pay, or similar expenditures, unless related to disruptions or closures resulting from COVID-19.? This does not mean all bonuses, merit pay, or similar expenditures are unallowable, only those unrelated to COVID-related disruptions or closures. For example, a local educational agency (LEA) might use local ESSER funds to provide employees with additional pay to: ? Address recruitment or retention challenges in light of the pandemic, ? Provide additional compensation to teachers and other staff that work inperson, ? Provide additional compensation to teachers and other staff that have assumed new duties because of COVID, ? Incentivize effective teachers to move to schools with vulnerable students ? that have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, or ? Provide additional pay to substitute teachers where there is a shortage. Districts will also need to be able to document that use of ESSER I/II/III funds for this purpose is necessary and the amount provided is reasonable (2 CFR ? 200.404). The District policy for awarding retention bonuses required the employee to be employed by the District as of February 14, 2022. Condition: The District used Education Stabilization Fund ESSER II to fund retention bonuses. The District awarded a retention bonus to an employee hired after the February 14, 2022 eligibility date. Context: The District awarded $1,300 to an employee hired after the eligibility date. Effect: Education Stabilization Funds could be expended for ineligible purposes. Questioned Costs: $1,300. Identification as a repeat finding: This is not a repeat finding. Cause: The District did not review the bonus listing and hire dates to ensure only eligible employees received the retention bonus. Recommendation: We recommend the District implement policies and procedures to ensure that retention bonuses are only paid to eligible employees.
Finding: The District improperly awarded a retention bonus to an ineligible employee. Criteria: When the U.S. Department of Education (ED) awarded ESSER I, II and III funds to states it noted the funds ?generally will not be used for bonuses, merit pay, or similar expenditures, unless related to disruptions or closures resulting from COVID-19.? This does not mean all bonuses, merit pay, or similar expenditures are unallowable, only those unrelated to COVID-related disruptions or closures. For example, a local educational agency (LEA) might use local ESSER funds to provide employees with additional pay to: ? Address recruitment or retention challenges in light of the pandemic, ? Provide additional compensation to teachers and other staff that work inperson, ? Provide additional compensation to teachers and other staff that have assumed new duties because of COVID, ? Incentivize effective teachers to move to schools with vulnerable students ? that have been disproportionately impacted by the pandemic, or ? Provide additional pay to substitute teachers where there is a shortage. Districts will also need to be able to document that use of ESSER I/II/III funds for this purpose is necessary and the amount provided is reasonable (2 CFR ? 200.404). The District policy for awarding retention bonuses required the employee to be employed by the District as of February 14, 2022. Condition: The District used Education Stabilization Fund ESSER II to fund retention bonuses. The District awarded a retention bonus to an employee hired after the February 14, 2022 eligibility date. Context: The District awarded $1,300 to an employee hired after the eligibility date. Effect: Education Stabilization Funds could be expended for ineligible purposes. Questioned Costs: $1,300. Identification as a repeat finding: This is not a repeat finding. Cause: The District did not review the bonus listing and hire dates to ensure only eligible employees received the retention bonus. Recommendation: We recommend the District implement policies and procedures to ensure that retention bonuses are only paid to eligible employees.