2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
2024-038 Noncompliance with Payroll and Travel Expense Policies and Procedures Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Internal Control Impact: Significant Deficiency Compliance Impact: Nonmaterial Noncompliance Federal Awarding Agencies: Various Pass-Through Entities: Various AL Numbers and Titles: Various – Research and Development Cluster Federal Award Numbers: Various Questioned Costs: None Identified Description: The University did not comply with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures. Background Information: During the year ended June 30, 2024, the Georgia Institute of Technology’s (“GIT” or the “Institute”) Department of Internal Audit completed audits of compliance with payroll and travel expense policies and procedures of two Schools within the Institute and identified noncompliance with those policies and procedures. Criteria: • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.302 Financial management • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.308 – Revision of budget and program plans • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.403 – Factors affecting allowability of costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.404 – Reasonable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.405 – Allocable costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.430 – Compensation – personal services • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.475 – Travel costs • Uniform Guidance 2 CFR § 200.432 – Conferences • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.12 • Title 41 CFR § 301-11.200 Subpart C – Reduced per Diem Condition: • Noncompliance with travel policies • Noncompliance with payroll expense policies and procedures Cause: • Lack of sufficient controls for proper review and approval of travel authorizations and expensed transactions associated with sponsored award expenses • Lack of sufficient controls to ensure time and effort is properly charged to sponsored awards • Lack of consistency enforcing payroll expense policies for sponsored award management Effect: Payroll and travel expenditures may not be in compliance with federal or grant award provisions. Recommendation: • Complete and approve spend authorizations before travel to validate the necessity and reasonableness of expenses. • Include detailed justifications in spend authorizations for the travel purpose and award benefit. • Require sufficient justification for payroll expenses charged to sponsored awards, particularly for significant variances in effort. • Update internal control policies to enhance oversight and verification of time and effort reporting. This should include clear guidelines on the documentation required to support the work performed and the consequences of non-compliance. Views of Responsible Officials: Management agrees with the finding. See management’s corrective action plan.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.403 and 200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable to the program, and adequately documented. Only allowable costs as defined by the terms and conditions of the award and the Uniform Guidance may be charged to the grant. Condition: During our testing of expenditures submitted by Solvista Health for reimbursement, we identified instances where costs were charged to the grant that were not allowable under the Uniform Guidance or the terms of the grant agreement. Specifically, unallowable employee meals were included in travel reimbursement costs. Context: Employees’ meal expenditures were submitted as allowable costs and as travel costs; however employee meals are not an allowable expenditure per the grant agreement. Questioned Costs: $842 consisting of unallowable meal expenditures. Cause: Solvista Health did not have sufficient internal controls implemented to identify unallowed expenditures, which were submitted for reimbursement. Effect: Failure to submit unallowable expenditures for reimbursement may result in noncompliance with the federal awarding agency and may result in the repayment of any unallowable expenditures to the grantor. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that Solvista Health implement internal controls to ensure review and approval of grant-related expenditures. Additionally, we recommend regular training of staff on allowable cost principles under Uniform Guidance.
Criteria or Specific Requirement: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.403 and 200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable to the program, and adequately documented. Only allowable costs as defined by the terms and conditions of the award and the Uniform Guidance may be charged to the grant. Condition: During our testing of expenditures submitted by Solvista Health for reimbursement, we identified instances where costs were charged to the grant that were not allowable under the Uniform Guidance or the terms of the grant agreement. Specifically, unallowable employee meals were included in travel reimbursement costs. Context: Employees’ meal expenditures were submitted as allowable costs and as travel costs; however employee meals are not an allowable expenditure per the grant agreement. Questioned Costs: $842 consisting of unallowable meal expenditures. Cause: Solvista Health did not have sufficient internal controls implemented to identify unallowed expenditures, which were submitted for reimbursement. Effect: Failure to submit unallowable expenditures for reimbursement may result in noncompliance with the federal awarding agency and may result in the repayment of any unallowable expenditures to the grantor. Identification as a Repeat Finding: Not a repeat finding. Recommendation: We recommend that Solvista Health implement internal controls to ensure review and approval of grant-related expenditures. Additionally, we recommend regular training of staff on allowable cost principles under Uniform Guidance.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Criteria: Per 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by adequate documentation. Indirect costs must be charged in accordance with an approved cost allocation plan under 2 CFR §200.412–§200.415. Condition: The County charged payroll costs using an internal allocation method that included salaries, benefits, and supplies, rather than actual expenditures. This method was not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. Additionally, the hours charged were based on total grant administration time, not specific to the CDBG program. Questioned costs: Known questioned costs of $21,643. Context: As part of the audit of the County’s FY24 expenditures under the CDBG program, CLA requested a reconciliation of payroll and nonpayroll costs. The County reported $67,219 in payroll expenses, but only $45,576 could be reconciled to supporting documentation. The remaining $21,643 could not be substantiated due to the preparer being on medical leave. Additionally, payroll costs were calculated using an internal allocation method that included indirect components (e.g., supplies) and were not supported by an approved cost allocation plan. The hours charged were based on general grant administration rather than specific CDBG activities. Cause: The County relied on an internally developed allocation method without formal approval or alignment with federal cost principles. Effect: The use of an unapproved allocation basis and insufficient documentation resulted in questioned costs totaling $21,643. The methodology overstated actual costs and did not ensure that charges were specific to the CDBG program. Repeat Finding: This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation: The County should ensure that all costs charged to federal programs are based on actual expenditures or an approved cost allocation plan. Documentation should be maintained to support all reported costs, and internal controls should be strengthened to prevent reliance on unsupported methodologies. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2024-004 FEDERAL PROGRAMS (ALN – 84.027) SPECIAL EDUCATION – GRANTS TO STATES (IDEA, PART B) (ALN – 84.196A) EDUCATION FOR HOMELESS CHILDREN AND YOUTH (ALN – 84.425D) COVID-19 EDUCATION STABILIZATION FUND: ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL EMERGENCY RELIEF FUND (ALN – 84.425R) COVID-19 EDUCATION STABILIZATION FUND: CORONAVIRUS RESPONSE AND RELIEF SUPPLEMENTAL APPROPRIATIONS ACT, 2021 – EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE TO NON-PUBLIC SCHOOLS (CRRSA EANS) (ALN – 84.425U) COVID-19 EDUCATION STABILIZATION FUND: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN – ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL EMERGENCY RELIEF (ARP ESSER) (ALN – 84.425V) COVID-19 EDUCATION STABILIZATION FUND: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN – EMERGENCY ASSISTANCE FOR NON-PUBLIC SCHOOLS (ARP EANS) (ALN – 84.425W) COVID-19 EDUCATION STABILIZATION FUND: AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN – ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL EMERGENCY RELIEF – HOMELESS CHILDREN AND YOUTH (ARP HCY) (ALN – 84.938A) HURRICANE EDUCATION RECOVERY – INMMEDIATE AID TO RESTART SCHOOL OPERATIONS (RESTART) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION AWARD NUMBERS H027A220003 (0701/2022 – 09/30/2023); S196A220040 (0701/2022 – 09/30/2023); S196A230040 (0701/2023 – 09/30/2024); S425D210029 (01/05/2021 – 03/31/2025); S425R210053 (06/28/2021 – 03/31/2025); S425U210029 (03/24/2021 – 03/28/2026); S425V210053 (09/24/2021 – 03/28/2026); S425W210040 (04/23/2021 – 03/28/2026); S938A180002 (04/26/2018 – 09/30/2025); S938A180009 (09/29/2022 – 04/30/2026); CONSOLIDATED FUNDS COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT ALLOWABLE COSTS/COSTS PRINCIPLES TYPE OF FINDING MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE AND MATERIAL WEAKNESS CRITERIA Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards Subpart E establish the requirements for Cost Principles – Allowable Costs under Federal awards. This Section at § 200.403 discloses factors affecting allowability of costs – states 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; and (g) Be adequately documented. Section § 200.404 Reasonable costs add: 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 including (c) Market prices for comparable goods or services for the geographic area. Also, § 200.405 Allocable Costs include that: A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received; including (2) Benefits both the Federal award and other work of the non-Federal entity and can be distributed in proportions that may be approximated using reasonable methods. STATEMENT OF CONDITION During our internal control and compliance tests of disbursements for Federal programs, we selected four (4) payments of professional services of Third-Party Fiduciary Agent Services ("TPFA") as part of our samples of the different Federal major programs. During our tests, we noted the following conditions: 1. Reasonableness of costs: The payment made to the vendor is a "flat fee" monthly payment agreed to in the professional service contract. Although the vendor invoice includes a detail of hours of service and expense summary, this information is solely for "information purposes" and not to be taken into account for the actual invoice payment process. The monthly payment amount only consideration is the agreed upon "flat fee". In the invoices evaluated (see detail below), the vendor includes a total hours incurred for each invoice with a price per hour range from $195 to $695. Also, the invoices include an expense summary for the period. When we compared the actual payment to the hours incurred and related expenditures, we noted an unreasonable charge to the PRDE and its Federal funds based upon the payment being made versus the actual service hours/expenses included on the invoice; when it is compared to price estimates made during the RFP process when the per hour price ranges were from $65 to $352. VOUCHER NUMBER VOUCHER DATE VOUCHER AMOUNT INVOICE NUMBER INVOICE DATE SERVICE PERIOD TOTAL HOURS INVOICED INVOICE AMOUNT TOTAL RELATED EXPENSES AVERAGE HOURLY RATE CALCULATED 24AP7166 8/14/2023 $ 2,333,333.33 830311-2023-27 7/5/2023 June 2023 7,335.00 $ 2,333,333.33 $ 699,296.00 $ 222.77 01180123 9/6/2023 2,333,333.33 830311-2023-28 8/1/2023 July 2023 6,756.00 2,333,333.33 127,620.42 326.48 01184263 9/19/2023 2,333,333.33 830311-2023-29 9/1/2023 August 2023 7,633.30 2,333,333.33 104,084.01 292.04 01188131 10/19/2023 2,333,333.33 830311-2023-30 10/1/2023 September 2023 6,884.00 2,333,333.33 103,238.55 323.95 01195137 11/28/2023 2,333,333.33 830311-2023-31 11/1/2023 October 2023 6,929.00 2,333,333.33 137,665.35 316.88 01201906 1/10/2024 2,333,333.33 830311-2023-32 12/1/2023 November 2023 5,913.00 2,333,333.33 91,491.21 379.14 01210539 1/30/2024 476,208.71 830311-2023-33A 1/1/2024 December 2023 1,130.00 476,208.71 - 421.42 01210542 2/6/2024 1,857,124.62 830311-2023-33B 1/1/2024 December 2023 4,408.00 1,857,124.62 73,628.57 404.60 01221775 3/12/2024 2,333,333.33 830311-2024-34 2/1/2024 January 2024 6,018.00 2,333,333.33 86,982.26 373.27 01226705 4/9/2024 2,333,333.33 830311-2024-35 3/1/2024 February 2024 5,725.00 2,333,333.33 75,861.61 394.32 01235153 4/16/2024 2,333,333.33 830311-2024-36 4/1/2024 March 2024 6,200.00 2,333,333.33 109,583.33 358.67 01251041 5/23/2024 2,500,000.00 830311-2024-37 5/8/2024 April 2024 6,420.00 2,500,000.00 302,908.85 - 01261194 6/24/2024 53,700.00 830311-2024-38A 6/1/2024 May 2024 126.74 53,700.00 - 423.70 01261196 6/24/2024 1,678,208.00 830311-2024-38B 6/1/2024 May 2024 4,245.79 1,678,208.00 180,197.40 352.82 01261198 6/24/2024 768,092.00 830311-2024-38C 6/1/2024 May 2024 1,964.47 768,092.00 - 390.99 $ 28,333,333.30 $ 28,333,333.30 $ 2,092,557.56 2. Allocability – the payment made was distributed among several Federal programs and state funds as follows: CONSOLIDATED FUNDS (SEA/LEA) ALN 84.027 NON-MAJOR ALN 84.196A ALN 84.425D ALN 84.425R ALN 84.425U ALN 84.425V ALN 84.425W ALN 84.938A TOTAL ALLOCATED AMOUNT $ - $ 2,333,333.33 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,333,333.33 - 2,333,333.33 - - - - - - - - 2,333,333.33 - 2,233,379.03 - 24,483.39 - - - - 75,470.91 - 2,333,333.33 2,333,333.33 - - - - - - - - - 2,333,333.33 2,333,333.33 - - - - - - - - - 2,333,333.33 - - 35,000.00 19,542.04 300,000.00 100,000.00 1,523,791.29 55,000.00 - 300,000.00 2,333,333.33 - - - - - - 476,208.71 - - - 476,208.71 1,857,124.62 - - - - - - - - - 1,857,124.62 2,333,333.33 - - - - - - - - - 2,333,333.33 2,333,333.33 - - - - - - - - - 2,333,333.33 2,333,333.33 - - - - - - - - - 2,333,333.33 2,500,000.00 - - - - - - - - - 2,500,000.00 53,700.00 - - - - - - - - - 53,700.00 1,678,208.00 - - - - - - - - - 1,678,208.00 - 65,031.74 - 63,309.25 - - 500,000.00 - 139,751.01 - 768,092.00 $ 17,755,699.27 $ 6,965,077.43 $ 35,000.00 $ 107,334.68 $ 300,000.00 $ 100,000.00 $ 2,500,000.00 $ 55,000.00 $ 215,221.92 $ 300,000.00 $ 28,333,333.30 62.67% 24.58% 0.12% 0.38% 1.06% 0.35% 8.82% 0.19% 0.76% 1.06% Based on the payment documentation of the evaluated invoices, the allocations were made based on available budget of administrative allocation of Federal awards, the invoices didn't include any basis for the allocation of costs between Federal and non-Federal funds. For example, on invoice number 830311-2023-32 the amount of $1,978,791 (85% of total invoice amount) was charged to several programs of ALN 84.425, although the services described in the invoice were not related only to these programs; therefore, the cost objective is not chargeable in accordance with the relative benefit received. In addition, several invoices for a total amount for the year of $6,965,077 or 24.58% of total payments were charged to Consolidated Funds which includes several Federal programs that could be incurred in unallowed costs. QUESTIONED COSTS Based on the Criterias established on Part II, § 200.403 and § 200.404 for Cost Principles – Allowable Costs under Federal awards, the based used for the costs distribution without specific services rendered to Federal Programs, as described in the Statement of Condition, we estimate as minimum the amount of $3,612,556.60 (including $107,334.68 on a Non-Major Program ALN 84.196A) as questioned costs for not supported documentation. This amount should increase if an evaluation of costs charged to Federal Programs included in Consolidated Funds. See also Perspective Information for more support. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION The total contract amount awarded for the services over the two-year period is $79,675,000, with a flat fee of $3,143,750 for the first twelve months, and $3,495,833 for the next twelve months. In the fiscal year 2023 there were 3 amendments to the original contract where it was agreed to pay a total fee of $2,995,833 for the months of April and May 2023 and the total amount of $23,333,333 for 10 additional months or $2,333,333 monthly from June 2023 to March 2024. During fiscal year 2024 there were two (2) amendments to the original contract where it was agreed to pay a total monthly fee of $2,500,000 for the months of April 2024 to March 2025, and a total monthly fee of $2,375,000 for the months of April 2025 to October 2025. From the first year of the contract up to the last amendment the total contract amount is approximately $155,625,000. Based on the inconsistent cost allocation method and the lack of a requirement for the payments being made for actual works performed, we considered this a systematic problem in the contract management and payment. Based on the information provided and evaluated the allocation between Federal and non-Federal funds is not applied consistently, other eleven (11) invoices for a total amount of $17,755,699 were paid from non-Federal funds, during the fiscal year. In accordance with the documentation provided the allocation used is based on the budget amounts available from state and Federal funds; during this fiscal year the total amount paid to the supplier was $28,333,333. Of this amount 62.67% were covered with state funds, 24.58% with consolidated activities funds, and 12.75% with Federal programs funds. STATEMENT OF CAUSE The PRDE did not include on the RFP process and the contract negotiation a clause that requires that the payment of services will be made upon actual hours incurred or that a final reconciliation process will be made during the contract period of performance based on actual service hours and expense incurred. The PRDE agreed upon a "flat fee" contract based on an estimate / budget of hours presented by the vendor on its proposal without considering the requirement of adjusting the payment for actual workhours incurred as part of its contract negotiation. The PRDE staff could not provide the basis used to distribute the cost between the different programs and state funds in accordance with the benefit obtained from the costs incurred. There is no consistent treatment or basis for the allocation of the payment costs between Federal programs and state funds. The contract includes the accounting codes that can be charged for the contract costs; however, no amounts, limitations, or basis for the cost’s distributions were included on the contract or in the payment documentation. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT Unreasonable costs may be charged to the PRDE's Federal programs that may result in questionable or unallowable costs by the Federal grantors. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING This is a repeat finding (Finding Reference Numbers 2021-006; 2022-008; and 2023-004). RECOMMENDATIONS We recommend to the PRDE to establish an adequate and consistent allocation method of each invoice amount that reflects the relative benefits that the Federal program received from the services provided by the supplier during the invoice period, so the Federal program can be charged for the costs of that period. In addition, we recommend that the PRDE revised the contract terms to include a reconciliation of total hours and rates to adjust the payments made to the vendor before the contract expiration. Also, we recommend that the PRDE should request that adequate supporting evidence from the vendors be presented for any expenses to be reimbursed by the PRDE. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS The PRDE does not agree with the Recommendation to establish an allocation method for TPFA invoices because TPFA services are overhead costs paid from administrative funds and are not tied to any specific federal grant. In addition, the PRDE does not agree that contract terms should be revised before the contract expiration to require a reconciliation of total hours and rates because again, payments to the TPFA are overhead costs not directly tied to any specific program. Finally, the PRDE does not agree with the recommendation that the TPFA submit supporting evidence for the reimbursement of expenses because (i) the TPFA contract is a fixed fee that is inclusive of all professional service fees and expenses and (ii) the TPFA provides an explanation of major expenses incurred within each monthly invoice. Auditor Comment on Management Response for Finding No. 2024-004 As stated in CONDITION 2., “…on invoice 830311-2023-32 the amount of $1,978,791 (85% of total invoice amount) was charged to several programs of ALN 84.425, although the services described in the invoice were not related only to these programs; therefore, the cost objective is not chargeable in accordance with the relative benefit received.” Further, the 2 CFR 200.1, establishes that: “Indirect [facilities & administrative (F&A)] costs mean those costs incurred for a common or joint purpose benefitting more than one cost objective, and not readily assignable to the cost objectives specifically benefitted, without effort disproportionate to the results achieved. To facilitate equitable distribution of indirect expenses to the cost objectives served, it may be necessary to establish a number of pools of indirect (F&A) costs. Indirect (F&A) cost pools must be distributed to benefitted cost objectives on bases that will produce an equitable result in consideration of relative benefits derived.” This information was not provided for our evaluation. Also, we made reference to the Program Determination Email for ALNs. 84.938 and 84.425 dated September 18, 2024 (Audit Control Number 02-21-39634), received from Ms. Catherine Miers of the Office of Elementary and Secondary Education of the US Department of Education (USDE), in which they required that the PRDE provide documentation for the following corrective actions: “revised the contract terms to include a reconciliation of total hours and rates to adjust the payments made to the vendor before the contract expiration; requested that adequate supporting evidence from the vendors be presented for any expenses to be reimbursed by the PRDE; and develop an adequate review of the vendors invoice to properly identify the actual hours of services that benefited the Federal programs so a correct allocation of the costs incurred can be made within Federal programs and state funds”. IMPLEMENTATION DATE None RESPONSIBLE PERSON Jullymar Octtaviani Vega Sub-Secretary of Administration María de los Angeles Lizardi Valdés Office of Federal Affairs Director
Assistance Listing Number: 93.558 Name of Federal Program or Cluster: Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) Name of Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services Name of Pass-Through Entity: Virginia Department of Social Services Pass-Through Entity Identifying Number: BEN-21-029 Award Period: July 1, 2023 through June 30, 2024 Criteria or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR 200.403–200.405 requires costs charged to a federal award must be allowable, allocable, and adequately supported. Condition: UCM did not maintain effective internal controls to ensure that non-payroll-related disbursements charged to the federal award were allowable. During planning, auditor identified material noncompliance of the non-payroll-related disbursements, and no further testing was performed. Specific issues included: Other direct costs o Disbursements lacked sufficient documentation to support allowability for costs charged based on budget. o Prepaid expenses for a database license and gift card inventories did not have adequate controls or supporting records. Cause: UCM lacked formal written policies and procedures governing allowability and documentation standards. Significant management personnel turnover resulted in inadequate federal grant knowledge and inconsistent application of Uniform Guidance requirements. Family Achievement supervisors can select any supervisor name to sign off/approve costs for allowability and payment. Effect or Potential Effect: Unallowable, unsupported, or inaccurately allocated costs were charged to the federal award. UCM may be required to repay federal funds and implement corrective actions. Questioned Costs: Include identified prepaids and costs in excess of actual: 2025 Database licensing: $40,000 Gift cards held in inventory: 12,853 Budgeted costs charged in excess of actual: 30,770 De minimis indirect cost rate applied to above costs: 8,362 Total known questioned costs: $91,985 Recommendation: UCM should develop and implement comprehensive written policies and procedures addressing allowability and documentation standards. Controls should ensure only actual costs are charged. Electronic signatures should have IT controls in place to allow for only the individual signing off to select their own name. Staff responsible for grant accounting should receive Uniform Guidance training. Views of Responsible Officials: Management acknowledges the finding and will work to implement appropriate corrective actions to address the deficiency and improve compliance going forward.
U.S Department of Health and Human Services - Head Start Cluster - AL #93.600 Grant Number: 10CH01165004 Grant Period: July 1, 2023 to June 30, 2024 Questioned Costs: $1,558,000 How the questioned costs were computed: Our analysis determined that costs were estimated to be overallocated during the program period. Condition – During the audit fieldwork, Wipfli, LLP noted that Head Start of Lane County had a documented cost allocation plan that described how costs were to allocated between grant programs, specifically allocation of costs based on slots and square footage. During our testing, we noted that Head Start of Lane County was unable to provide supporting documentation that costs were allocated based on the documented plan. This is a repeat finding from prior year. Criteria – Per 2 CFR 200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allocable based on the relative benefits received and assigned using a reasonable methodology. In addition, Section 200.400 (d) of Uniform Guidance states the accounting practices of the recipient must be consistent with these cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by these cost principles, including maintaining adequate documentation to support costs charged to the Federal award. Cause – During the audit year, there was turnover in Head Start of Lane County’s business office which contributed to the lack of support available for the allocation. Head Start of Lane County is working on streamlining and implementing processes to address the deficiency noted in the condition paragraph. Effect - As a result of not having documentation to support the application of the cost allocation plan, a material weakness exists in internal controls over allocation of costs. Recommendation - We recommend management and those charged with governance evaluate the operation of the finance department and implement procedures to ensure that costs are allocated in accordance with the documented cost allocation plan. View of Responsible Officials - Management agrees with the assessment and has committed to a corrective action plan.
FINDING NO: 2024-043 Strengthen Controls Over Planning and Development of Construction Projects and Noncompliance With State Encumbrance Requirements STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2024 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles; Period of Performance; Procurement and Suspension and Debarment QUESTIONED COSTS: $6,218,295 Condition and Context: During SFY 2024, the Oklahoma Department of Mental Health and Substance Abuse Services (ODMHSAS) received CSLFRF funds for planning and development activities for the proposed Donahue Behavioral Health Campus, a project originally intended to replace the existing Griffin Memorial Hospital. The Oklahoma Legislature appropriated $87 million to the project on October 5, 2022, through House Bill 1013. Additional CSLFRF funds were contributed by Oklahoma City ($1 million) and Oklahoma County ($1.5 million), with future funding anticipated from the eventual sale of the Griffin Memorial Hospital property. During SFY 2024, ODMHSAS incurred expenditures totaling $6,218,295 associated with planning, design, and initial development for the Donahue Behavioral Health Campus in Oklahoma City. However, the project became financially infeasible due to escalating construction costs and budget shortfalls. By May 2025, ODMHSAS abandoned the original construction plan and restructured the project to instead acquire and renovate the vacant former SSM Health facility in southwest Oklahoma City. Expenditures associated with the original Donahue project did not result in a completed capital asset or usable project deliverable. The prior project activities did not transfer to, or provide value toward, the revised Oklahoma City Behavioral Health Campus (OKCBHC) renovation project. As a result, planning and development expenditures for the original Donahue project represent wasted costs. In addition, during our review of the expenditures related to the project, the State incurred an obligation prior to encumbering the necessary funds for claim 629685, totaling $50,000. Because the obligation occurred before the encumbrance was established, the payment required a subsequent ratification to be processed. Cause: The State did not adequately evaluate the project’s feasibility or long-term funding requirements before committing significant planning and development costs, including failing to account for the rising construction expenses typically associated with a project of this scale. Rising construction costs and insufficient appropriated resources caused ODMHSAS to discontinue the original project, rendering prior expenditures ineffective and providing no benefit to the Federal program. In addition, an obligation was initiated without first completing the required encumbrance process, indicating a lapse in adherence to procurement procedures, review processes, and internal controls over commitment of funds. Effect: CSLFRF funds totaling $6,218,295 were used for activities that did not result in a functional capital project and provided no measurable benefit to the Federal program. Failure to encumber funds prior to incurring obligations increases the risk of unauthorized expenditures, budget overruns, and noncompliance with State procurement regulations. The need for ratification indicates that normal procurement controls were bypassed. However, the claim 629685 for $50,000 was not questioned since the agency made a correcting entry to pay for the costs with state funds. Recommendation: The State should strengthen project planning and feasibility evaluations before obligating Federal funds for large-scale capital projects. The State should ensure that sufficient funding, cost estimates, and contingency plans are verified prior to expenditure. The State should strengthen internal controls to ensure that all obligations are properly encumbered before commitments are made. Staff responsible for initiating purchases or contracts should receive periodic training on procurement and encumbrance requirements. The State should also implement review procedures to detect and prevent obligations from being incurred without an existing encumbrance. Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 – Internal Controls 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.” 2 CFR § 200.403, states in part, “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: …(a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 200.300 through 200.309 of this part.” 2 CFR § 200.405(a) states, “A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. This standard is met if the cost: (1) Is incurred specifically for the Federal award; (2) Benefits both the Federal award and other work of the non-Federal entity and can be distributed in proportions that may be approximated using reasonable methods; and (3) Is necessary to the overall operation of the non-Federal entity and is assignable in part to the Federal award in accordance with the principles in this subpart.” 2 CFR § 200.317, - Procurements by States, states, “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. Applicable State Rules and Regulations Okla. Const. art. X, § 23 - Balanced budget - Procedures. “The state shall never create or authorize the creation of any debt or obligation, or fund or pay any deficit, against the state, or any department, institution or agency thereof, regardless of its form or the source of money from which it is to be paid.” 62 O.S. § 34.62 - Encumbrance Requirements for Payments from Funds of State, “Encumbrance requirements for payments from funds of the state shall include the following: 1. Whenever agencies of this state enter into contracts for, or on behalf of the state for the purchase of tangible or intangible property, or for services or labor, such agreement shall be evidenced by written contracts or purchase orders, and must be transmitted to the Director of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services within a reasonable time from the date of the awarding of the contract or purchase order.” Management Response Contact Person: OMES: Elizabeth Base 452: Chad Carden Anticipated Completion Date: ODMHSAS anticipates completing updated procedures, review checklists, and targeted written guidance by June 30, 2027. Because the Donahue review requires analysis of historical project expenditures, related accounting and reporting records, multiple funding sources, and coordination with OMES-GMO, ODMHSAS anticipates completing the riskbased transaction review and related follow-up by December 31, 2027. Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office agrees and Mental Health partially agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report. Auditor Response: Based on current documentation the costs do not demonstrate a benefit to the CSLFRF award or show value carried forward to the successor project; therefore, the questioned costs remain unchanged.
FINDING NO: 2024-069 Strengthen Internal Controls Over Federal Expenditures Charged To Other Grants and Excessive Defined Contributions (Pathfinder) Being Charged To Federal Grants STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2024 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles; Period of Performance QUESTIONED COSTS: $80,370 Condition and Context: While reconciling the Oklahoma Broadband Office (OBO) SEFA to the statewide accounting system we noted OBO used class fund 497 (CSLFRF designated class fund) for ALN 11.035 (Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (BEAD) Program) and ALN 11.032 (State Digital Equity Planning and Capacity Grant Program) payroll expenditures totaling $322,387. The BEAD program is designated to class fund 410. The Digital Equity Planning and Capacity Grant Program is designated to class fund 400. This resulted in a payroll fund correcting entry in the same amount; therefore, we will not question the costs. For employees in Oklahoma’s Pathfinder Defined Contribution retirement plan, the employer pays a defined contribution match on the employee’s pay. That match can be charged to CSLFRF (class fund 497) or other grants, as long as the employee’s work benefits the grant. The employer also must send an extra amount to the retirement system so total employer contributions equal the standard rate, and that extra amount cannot be charged to grants and must be paid with state funds. We noted $80,370 [$84,986 (total CF 497 Pathfinder) - $4,616 (Payroll Fund Corrections)] was charged to class fund 497 account 513300 for Pathfinder. The remaining uncorrected charges for Pathfinder will result in questioned costs. Cause: The State does not have a process or control to ensure program expenditures are charged only to the respective class fund for that program. Effect: The $80,370 in excess Pathfinder contributions overcharged to the CSLFRF program are required be reimbursed to the Federal agency. Recommendation: We recommend the State develop and implement controls to ensure agencies can only charge federal grant payroll expenditures to the respective class fund for each program. In addition, ensure Pathfinder excess contributions (account 513300) are not charged to the CSLFRF program. Criteria: 2 CFR 200.405 (d) Allocable costs states, “Direct cost allocation principles. If a cost benefits two or more projects or activities in proportions that can be determined without undue effort or cost, the cost must be allocated to the projects based on the proportional benefit. If a cost benefits two or more projects or activities in proportions that cannot be determined because of the interrelationship of the work involved, then, …, the costs may be allocated or transferred to benefitted projects on any reasonable documented basis.” 2 CFR §200.62, “Internal control over compliance requirements for Federal awards means a process implemented by a non-Federal entity designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of the following objectives for Federal awards: (a) Transactions are properly recorded and accounted for, in order to: …. (3) Demonstrate compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award and (b) Transactions are executed in compliance with: (1) Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award that could have a direct and material effect on a Federal program. …. .” 2 CFR 200.403 (a) Factors affecting allowability of costs states, “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles.” 2 CFR 200.431 (c) Compensation – fringe benefits states, . . . “Such benefits, must be allocated to Federal awards and all other activities in a manner consistent with the pattern of benefits attributable to the individuals or group(s) of employees whose salaries and wages are chargeable to such Federal awards and other activities, and charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity's accounting practices.” A basic objective of Generally Accepted Accounting Principles is to provide accurate, reliable, and timely information. Management Response Contact Person: OMES: Elizabeth Base; 085: Beverlee Harbuck Anticipated Completion Date: December 31, 2026. Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office agrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report.
FINDING NO: 2024-074 (Repeat 2023-101) Obtain Adequate Invoice Documentation to Support Administrative Cost Reimbursements. STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2024 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles; Period of Performance QUESTIONED COSTS: $67,998 Condition and Context: The State of Oklahoma had twenty-two (22) state agencies report CSLFRF expenditures on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for SFY 2024. For the nine (9) state agencies selected for cash basis non-subrecipient testing, we sampled 72 of 489 transactions totaling $9,447,954 from a population of $14,688,540, and noted only one exception for lack of adequate documentation on the invoice to support the administrative costs (see additional exceptions from sample on finding 2024-075): • Department of Human Services (DHS) processed reimbursement claim #1960613 totaling $13,320 for administrative costs related to services provided by Jill Geiger Consulting (JGC). The associated JGC invoice lacked sufficient detail to substantiate the allowability and allocability of the charges to the CSLFRF award. The invoice for claim #1960613 provided only a general description for program management services for the project included in SB1186 for June 2023 and listed quantity, rate, and amount, with no project-level or staff-level detail. SB1186 designated funds for only one project. The invoice did not document the progress of work performed for the project (e.g., staff assigned, hours by staff, cumulative hours/amounts, or cumulative percent of contract billed). For the nine (9) state agencies selected for current-year accounts payable testing, we sampled 35 of 113 current-year accounts payable transactions totaling $11,282,131 from a population of $16,177,841, and noted only one exception for lack of adequate documentation on the invoice to support the administrative costs (see additional exceptions from sample on finding 2024-075): • Department of Human Services (DHS) processed reimbursement claim #2013148 totaling $54,678 for administrative costs related to services provided by Jill Geiger Consulting (JGC). The associated JGC invoice lacked sufficient detail to substantiate the allowability and allocability of the charges to the CSLFRF award. The invoice for claim #2013148 provided only a general description for program management services for projects included in HB2884 for June 2024 and listed quantity, rate, and amount, with no project-level or staff-level detail. HB2884 designated funds for nine projects. The invoice did not document the progress of work performed for each project (e.g., staff assigned, hours by staff, cumulative hours/amounts, or cumulative percent of contract billed). Cause: The State did not require JGC to submit invoices with sufficient detail to support the administrative costs billed to each project. Existing invoice review procedures did not ensure that key documentation elements were provided prior to reimbursement. Effect: Without detailed invoices supporting the nature and extent of work performed for each project, the State cannot demonstrate that the administrative costs billed were reasonable, allocable, and allowable under Federal requirements. This deficiency increases the risk of unallowable or unsupported charges, misallocation across projects, inaccurate financial reporting, and potential repayment or recovery of questioned costs. Recommendation: The State and DHS should ensure JGC provides invoices with the following details: • Staff assigned to each project and hours billed by each staff • Total current hours billed for each project • Total current amount billed for each project • Cumulative hours billed for each project • Cumulative amount billed for each project • Cumulative amount billed as a percentage of total contract value • Detailed description of work performed. Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 – Internal Controls 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.” 2 CFR § 200.403 - Factors affecting allowability of costs states in part, “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: (g) Be adequately documented.” 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.” 2 CFR §200.405 (d) Allocable costs states, “Direct cost allocation principles. If a cost benefits two or more projects or activities in proportions that can be determined without undue effort or cost, the cost must be allocated to the projects based on the proportional benefit. If a cost benefits two or more projects or activities in proportions that cannot be determined because of the interrelationship of the work involved, then, …, the costs may be allocated or transferred to benefitted projects on any reasonable documented basis.” Management Response Contact Person: OMES: Elizabeth Base DHS: Lindsey Kanaly Anticipated Completion Date: Completed Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office disagrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report. Auditor Response: The invoices lacked the minimum detail needed to substantiate the nature and extent of work and cumulative progress. Agreement of total hours between invoices and timekeeping does not establish allocability to each project. The requirement is that hours charged to a project on the invoice match and be traceable to the actual staff reported hours for that project.
FINDING NO: 2024-075 Strengthen documentation and project scope reviews, enforce procurement, confirm receipt, and recover or reclassify unallowable CSLFRF costs STATE AGENCY: State of Oklahoma FEDERAL AGENCY: U.S. Department of the Treasury ALN: 21.027 FEDERAL PROGRAM NAME: Coronavirus State And Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) FEDERAL AWARD NUMBER: N/A FEDERAL AWARD YEAR: 2024 CONTROL CATEGORY: Activities Allowed or Unallowed; Allowable Costs/Cost Principles; Period of Performance, Procurement and Suspension and Debarment, Subrecipient Monitoring QUESTIONED COSTS: $630,505 Condition and Context: The Office of Management and Enterprise Services - Grants Management Office (OMESGMO) is the central administering entity of CSLFRF funds for the State of Oklahoma (primary recipient). Although OMES-GMO has the authority to transfer funds, the transfer to state agencies does not create a subrecipient relationship since both entities are part of the same auditee (State of Oklahoma Single Audit). CSLFRF funds were transferred by the State of Oklahoma to twenty-two (22) state agencies, each of which reported CSLFRF expenditures on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for SFY 2024. We selected nine (9) state agencies for Non-Subrecipient, Subrecipient, and Accounts Payable Testing. For the nine (9) state agencies selected for cash basis testing, we randomly sampled 72 of 489 non-subrecipient transactions totaling $9,447,954 from a population of $14,688,540 (64.3%), and noted the following exceptions: o For five claims reviewed at agency (025), we noted the agency chose to follow the controlled advance policy; therefore, OMES-GMO only reviewed supporting documentation provided during quarterly reporting to U.S Treasury, based on what the agency submitted. It does not appear OMES-GMO would have had sufficient support to determine the costs were allowable since the documentation provided was the same as what is available in the Statewide Accounting System. The claims in Statewide Accounting System were supported with only an OMD Design Build Invoice or professional services invoice. Therefore, it does not appear the claims were properly reviewed since there was not enough support provided by the vendor at the time of payment. Based on our review of additional support and contracts requested through the vendor, the costs were allowable; therefore, we will not question the costs. o For four claims reviewed at agency (085), it appears the expenditures were for the federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (ALN 11.035 - BEAD) and Digital Equity Act (ALN 11.032 - DEA) State Planning Grant programs. We obtained the scope of work associated with the purchase order for the claims from the Statewide Accounting System and noted it appears CSLFRF funds were used to supplement BEAD and DEA planning and implementation expenditures. Therefore, the expenses are outside the scope of the Broadband Mapping project for CSLFRF. As a result, it appears $309,250 of unallowable costs were reviewed and approved. o For one claim reviewed at agency (085), we noted the claim was for legislative consulting services in April, May, and June 2023. Each month of service was a charge of $6,000 for a total of $18,000. No purchase order was created for the April 2023 services. Therefore, the agency completed the Agency Business Services (ABS) – Form 009 Ratification Agreement. The claim was then processed by ABS and services were paid on 9/18/23. The state incurred an obligation before encumbering funds; therefore, violating procurement policies. o For three claims reviewed at agency (452), we noted it does not appear OMES-GMO would have had sufficient support to determine if the costs were allowable. The invoice only states "work completed" or "progress billing" for a period; therefore, we are unable to determine what services were performed. It does not appear the claim was properly reviewed by OMES-GMO. In addition, we noted the claim was reversed as a result of a correcting voucher included in the current year accounts payable to move the class funding from CF 497 (Federal CSLFRF) to CF 194 (state). Therefore, we will not question the costs. o For one claim reviewed at agency (452), we noted the claim required a ratification for payment. The state incurred an obligation before encumbering funds; therefore, violating procurement policies. In addition, we noted the claim was reversed as a result of a correcting voucher included in the current year accounts payable to move the class funding from CF 497 (Federal CSLFRF) to CF 194 (state). Therefore, we will not question the costs. Additional exceptions noted during non-subrecipient testing can be found at findings 2024-043, 2024-069, & 2024- 074. Questioned costs for non-subrecipient transactions totaled $309,250. For the nine (9) state agencies selected for cash basis testing, we randomly sampled 52 of 443 subrecipient transactions totaling $18,059,149 from a population of $49,407,554 (36.6%), and noted the following exceptions: o For two claims reviewed at agency (400), we noted the agency chose to follow the controlled advanced policy; therefore, OMES-GMO only reviewed supporting documentation provided during quarterly reporting to U.S Treasury, based on what the agency submitted. The costs do not appear to be within the CSLFRF project description. Therefore, $257 of unallowable costs were reviewed and approved. o For one claim reviewed at agency (619), we noted it does not appear OMES-GMO would have had $10,915 of $74,472 in supporting documentation to ensure a proper review and approval. Based on our review of the missing support we obtained from the agency the costs were allowable; therefore, we will not question the costs. o For one claim reviewed at agency (830), we noted it appears $331 of unallowable costs (incentive gift cards, travel costs and mileage for training) were reviewed and approved. o For two claims reviewed at agency (830), we noted there was no receiving documentation such as a packing slip or bill of lading to indicate the goods had been received by the intended recipient. We obtained the missing support from the agency; therefore, we will not question the costs. Questioned costs for subrecipient transactions totaled $588. For the nine (9) state agencies selected for current-year accounts payable testing, we randomly sampled 35 of 113 current-year accounts payable transactions totaling $11,282,131 from a population of $16,177,841 (69.7%), and noted the following exceptions: o For three claims reviewed at agency (025), we noted the agency chose to follow the controlled advance policy; therefore, OMES-GMO only reviewed supporting documentation provided during quarterly reporting to U.S Treasury, based on what the agency submitted. It does not appear OMES-GMO would have had sufficient support to determine the costs were allowable since the documentation provided was the same as what is available in the Statewide Accounting System. The claims in Statewide Accounting System were supported with only an OMD Design Build Invoice or professional services invoice. Therefore, it does not appear the claims were properly reviewed since there was not enough support provided by the vendor at the time of payment. Based on review of additional support and contracts requested through the vendor, the costs were allowable; therefore, we will not question the costs. o For three claims reviewed at agency (085), it appears the expenditures were for the federal Broadband Equity, Access, and Deployment (ALN 11.035 - BEAD) and Digital Equity Act (ALN 11.032 - DEA) State Planning Grant programs. We obtained the scope of work associated with the purchase order for the claims from the Statewide Accounting System and noted it appears CSLFRF funds were used to supplement BEAD and DEA planning and implementation expenditures; therefore, outside the intent or scope of the CSLFRF Broadband Mapping project. As a result, it appears $320,667 of unallowable costs were reviewed and approved. Additional exceptions noted during current-year accounts payable testing can be found at findings 2024-043 and 2024-074. Questioned costs for current-year accounts payable transactions totaled $320,667. Cause: The controlled advance review performed by OMES‑GMO relied on summary documentation at the time of quarterly reporting to U.S. Treasury, which does not consistently provide the detailed evidence necessary to determine allowability. Preventive procurement controls were not consistently followed, as evidenced by obligations incurred prior to encumbrance and subsequent ratifications. Also, controls to ensure expenditures were for the intended project were insufficient to prevent CSLFRF charges that supplemented other federal programs. Lastly, receiving evidence was not consistently retained or reviewed for subrecipient expenditures. Effect: The conditions noted above increase the risk that unallowable costs are charged to CSLFRF and that the State of Oklahoma is not in compliance with Uniform Guidance and U.S. Treasury program requirements. The deficiencies also elevate the risk of SEFA misstatement at an agency and state level, and potential repayment to the federal government. Recommendation: We recommend the State of Oklahoma strengthen controls for claims review procedures by requiring detailed invoices, deliverable‑level descriptions, and receiving evidence to be presented at the time of review. Further, the State of Oklahoma should strengthen controls to ensure project expenditures are within the scope of the project. The State of Oklahoma should strengthen controls to ensure that all obligations are properly encumbered before commitments are made. Also, the State of Oklahoma should implement review procedures to detect and prevent obligations from being incurred without an existing encumbrance. Subrecipient monitoring should include consistent verification of supporting documentation and perform follow‑up for any missing support. Lastly, a retrospective review should be performed for high‑risk agencies and transactions to identify, recover, or reclassify any additional unallowable charges. Criteria: 2 CFR § 200.303 – Internal Controls 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.” 2 CFR § 200.334 – Retention requirements for records states in part: “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 § 200.403 states in part: “Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following criteria to be allowable under Federal awards: … (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. … (g) Be adequately documented. See also §§ 200.300 through 200.309 of this part.” 2 CFR § 200.405(a) states: “A cost is allocable to a particular Federal award or other cost objective if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that Federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. This standard is met if the cost: (1) Is incurred specifically for the Federal award; (2) Benefits both the Federal award and other work of the non-Federal entity and can be distributed in proportions that may be approximated using reasonable methods; and (3) Is necessary to the overall operation of the non-Federal entity and is assignable in part to the Federal award in accordance with the principles in this subpart.” 2 CFR § 200.317, - Procurements by States states: “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.” Applicable State Rules and Regulations Okla. Const. art. X, § 23 - Balanced budget – Procedures states: “The state shall never create or authorize the creation of any debt or obligation, or fund or pay any deficit, against the state, or any department, institution or agency thereof, regardless of its form or the source of money from which it is to be paid.” 62 O.S. § 34.62 - Encumbrance Requirements for Payments from Funds of State states: “Encumbrance requirements for payments from funds of the state shall include the following: 1. Whenever agencies of this state enter into contracts for, or on behalf of the state for the purchase of tangible or intangible property, or for services or labor, such agreement shall be evidenced by written contracts or purchase orders, and must be transmitted to the Director of the Office of Management and Enterprise Services within a reasonable time from the date of the awarding of the contract or purchase order.” Management Response Contact Person: Elizabeth Base Anticipated Completion Date: December 31, 2026 Corrective Action Planned: The Office of Management Enterprise Services – Grants Management Office disagrees with the finding. Please see the corrective action plan located in the corrective action plan section of this report. Auditor Response: OMES-GMO’s reliance on 62 O.S. § 255.1 to label agencies “subrecipients” cannot override Federal audit classification. State-mandated grant agreements may be useful internal oversight instruments, but they do not convert intra-State transfers into Federal subawards for Single Audit purposes. Both the State’s central oversight (OMESGMO) and the state agency share responsibility for ensuring the award complies. Failures at the agency level can create noncompliance for the State’s Single Audit. The State is externally accountable to the Federal awarding agency. In Single Audit terms, they act as one non-federal entity, so compliance, controls, and reporting are consolidated across them. Relevant state agencies were contacted to obtain information and supporting documentation and were provided with an opportunity to submit additional support, clarifications, or evidence responding to the finding. Despite this outreach and the extended window for response, no further support was provided. Agency 025 It is the agency’s responsibility to perform and document a concurrent allowability review at the time of payment and to retain sufficient support in OMD’s own grant/finance records. The Uniform Guidance requires that costs be adequately documented and that the non-Federal entity maintain records that identify the source and application of funds and support its internal control over compliance. Agency 085 Supporting records indicate work that principally benefits BEAD/DEA planning and implementation. Absent a documented allocation basis that ties the charged amounts to CSLFRF mapping deliverables, the charges are not allocable to CSLFRF. Processing payments “together” for convenience does not relieve OBO of its obligation to segregate costs by funding source and retain sufficient documentation in OBO’s files that demonstrates allowability under CSLFRF. Agency 400 Based on our review of the subrecipient contract description for how the funds will be utilized, we maintain our position that the Keurig holder and portable heaters appear to be outside the scope of the project. Agency 830 The agency’s response describes programmatic rationale for $100 completion-based incentives but does not address the specific transaction tested which were four $25 gift cards purchased on October 25, 2023. The agency did not provide documentation identifying recipients, issuance dates, or purposes for the gift cards. The support provided pertains to a different period (January – March 2024) and different amounts ($100).