In accordance with 2 CFR 200.405, costs must be allocated to the projects based on the proportional benefit. If this cannot be determined, costs may be allocated or transferred to benefitted projects on any reasonable documented basis. For the year ended December 31, 2023, AEA did not maintain support for their allocation methodology for 14 cash disbursement items selected. Allocations were made based on predetermined percentages established by the prior Chief Financial Officer. The expense allocations may not be appropriate. AEA is not in compliance with 2 CFR 200.405. There are no questioned costs reported. A random sampling of the federal expenditures. This is not a repeat finding from the prior year.We recommend that AEA review and reestablish their allocation methodology for allocated costs.
In accordance with 2 CFR 200.405, costs must be allocated to the projects based on the proportional benefit. If this cannot be determined, costs may be allocated or transferred to benefitted projects on any reasonable documented basis. For the year ended December 31, 2023, AEA did not maintain support for their allocation methodology for 14 cash disbursement items selected. Allocations were made based on predetermined percentages established by the prior Chief Financial Officer. The expense allocations may not be appropriate. AEA is not in compliance with 2 CFR 200.405. There are no questioned costs reported. A random sampling of the federal expenditures. This is not a repeat finding from the prior year.We recommend that AEA review and reestablish their allocation methodology for allocated costs.
In accordance with 2 CFR 200.405, costs must be allocated to the projects based on the proportional benefit. If this cannot be determined, costs may be allocated or transferred to benefitted projects on any reasonable documented basis. For the year ended December 31, 2023, AEA did not maintain support for their allocation methodology for 14 cash disbursement items selected. Allocations were made based on predetermined percentages established by the prior Chief Financial Officer. The expense allocations may not be appropriate. AEA is not in compliance with 2 CFR 200.405. There are no questioned costs reported. A random sampling of the federal expenditures. This is not a repeat finding from the prior year.We recommend that AEA review and reestablish their allocation methodology for allocated costs.
Questioned Costs: $44,046 - The overbilled amount has been reclassified to a liability to the funder but has not been repaid or settled. Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.403 and 2 CFR § 200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and necessary to the performance of the federal award. Under the terms of a cost-reimbursement federal contract, as governed by 2 CFR § 200.403, § 200.404, and § 200.405, all costs charged to a federal award must be: • Actually incurred, • Allocable to the program, • Allowable under federal cost principles, and • Supported by adequate documentation. Under 2 CFR § 200.414 indirect costs may only be charged based on an approved rate (e.g., NICRA or de minimis), applied to the proper base and only if such costs are actually incurred during the performance period. Billing the full invoice amount of shared costs without allocating based on an approved indirect cost rate is not compliant with Uniform Guidance. Condition: The Organization billed indirect costs totaling $45,096 to a federal cost-reimbursement contract, despite not having incurred qualifying indirect costs during the contract period. The Organization charged entire invoice amounts for shared indirect costs. The billed amounts were based solely on the approved indirect cost rate applied to direct cost invoices, however, there is a maximum of $1,050 in actual indirect expenses for administrative support, or other shared costs incurred or allocated. Cause: The Organization misinterpreted the cost allocation rules and did not have an adequate process for applying the approved indirect cost rate. Billing practices defaulted to charging the entire invoice amount to federal awards when costs benefitted multiple programs. The Organization lacked adequate controls over indirect cost invoicing and did not perform timely reconciliations between budgeted and actual costs incurred. The outside accountant relied on budgeted percentages rather than actual expenses, and there was no final adjustment process in place to reconcile at year-end. Effect: The Organization received $44,046 in federal funds that were not supported by actual indirect costs incurred. These funds represent unallowable costs and are considered questioned costs under the Uniform Guidance. Identification of Repeat Finding ☐ Yes ☑ No Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization: • Implement policies and procedures to reconcile indirect costs billed to actual costs incurred. • Implement a post-invoicing reconciliation process to compare actual indirect costs with amounts billed. • Ensure that all invoicing for federal awards complies with the approved indirect cost rate agreement. • Return the $44,046 of unexpended indirect cost reimbursements to the granting agency. • Provide additional training to accounting and grants management staff on the treatment of indirect costs under 2 CFR Part 200.
Questioned Costs: $88,135 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR § 200.403–.405, costs charged to federal awards must be allowable, allocable, and supported by valid documentation. Additionally, under 2 CFR § 200.318–.320, all contracts must be awarded with clear terms and timeframes and must be executed prior to the provision of goods or services. For subawards, 2 CFR § 200.331 requires that subrecipient agreements be in writing and include all legally required terms and conditions. Payments made outside the terms of a written, active contract — particularly beyond expiration dates — may be deemed unallowable due to lack of legal obligation and documentation. Condition: Of the ten contracts selected for testing, seven were expired at the time payments were made. In total, the Organization paid $88,135 for services rendered beyond the contract end dates, including payments to one subrecipient and multiple consultants or contractors. The Organization indicated that all payments were budgeted within the approved federal grant agreements; however, these payments were not supported by amendments, extensions, or new agreements authorizing continued work or compensation. Additionally, in four additional instances, one selected for testing, contracts specified hourly or deliverable rates and defined service periods but contained inaccurate or inconsistent total compensation amounts. One of four contracts made payments under these agreements that exceeded the stated contract total. Overall, the discrepancies created ambiguity about the authorized funding limit and raise concerns about enforceability and allowability of the costs under federal award terms. Cause: The Organization did not have sufficient procedures in place to monitor contract expiration dates or to ensure that updated agreements were executed before authorizing payments. In these cases, services continued based on verbal agreements or historical practice rather than a valid, enforceable contract. Effect: As a result, $88,135 in costs were incurred and charged to the federal grant without a valid contractual basis. Even though the costs were budgeted, the lack of a valid, active contract invalidates the legal obligation required for allowability under 2 CFR § 200.403 and § 200.405. Therefore, the costs are questioned pending resolution with the federal awarding agency. Furthermore, the absence of executed agreements represents a significant internal control deficiency and increases the risk of unauthorized or disputed expenditures. The inconsistencies in contractual rates expose the Organization to the risk of paying amounts not clearly authorized by written agreements and may result in questioned or disallowed costs, especially if contract limits are exceeded. Weaknesses in contract drafting and review also constitute a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Identification of Repeat Finding: ☐ Yes ☑ No Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization: • Develop and implement a contract tracking system to monitor start and end dates. • Require that all contracts, extensions, and amendments be executed before services are rendered or payments are issued. • Provide training to program and procurement staff on federal procurement standards and contract management. • Review existing contracts to ensure compliance and take corrective action for any others that may have expired. • Work with the awarding agency to determine whether any portion of the $88,135 must be refunded.
Finding number: 2023-006 Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance: Allowable Costs and Activities Federal Program #1 HIV Emergency Relief Project Grants: CFDA Number 93.914 Federal Program #2 HIV Care Formula Grants: CFDA Number 93.917 Federal Program #2 HIV Prevention Activities: CFDA Number: 93.941 Name of federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Name of pass-through entity: Multiple Repeat finding: No Criteria: 2 CFR §200.405 requires that costs be allocable to the federal program based on relative benefits received and be supported by appropriate documentation. For personnel costs, 2 CFR §200.430(i) requires that compensation for employees whose time is charged to federal awards be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed, such as time and effort reporting or equivalent documentation. For shared costs, 2 CFR §200.412-200.414 requires that cost allocations be based on documented methodologies that are reasonable and supported by underlying calculations. Condition: The Organization does not have formalized internal controls to support the rationale for allocation of shared costs and employee time across federal programs. Specifically: Time and effort is being tracked and maintained by employees, including hours charged to the specific efforts for the programs. Often, employees charge hours to specific programs in excess of amounts allocated to the program as expenditures. The specific amount of employee salaries and wages that are allocated to specific federal programs for reimbursement, and which are less than the amounts reflected in the time and effort records, are determined by members of the finance staff. The rationale for the amount actually allocated for reimbursement, if less than the amount reflected in the time and effort records, is not documented. Review and approval of the allocation of employee compensation to specific federal programs reimbursement requests is not maintained. Cause: The deficiency exists because the Organization has not implemented a structured process for documenting the extent to which allowable compensation costs will be allocated for reimbursement to specific federal programs in instances where the allowable compensation cost exceeds the amount allocated for reimbursement. AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Possible effect: The absence of documented allocation methodologies in instances where allowable compensation costs exceed the amount allocated for reimbursement increases the risk that: Costs may be improperly allocated between federal programs, resulting in potential noncompliance with federal cost principles. Federal expenditures may be misstated, impacting financial and grant reporting. Although questioned costs were not identified, the lack of specific supporting documentation and controls represents a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Questioned cost: None identified at this time. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization implement the following corrective actions: 1. Develop and Implement a Written Cost Allocation Policy – Establish a formal policy outlining the methodology for allocating shared costs and personnel time across programs, especially in instances where allowable costs exceed amounts allocated for reimbursement, ensuring compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 cost principles. 2. Document Allocation Methodologies for Shared Costs – Ensure that allocations for shared costs (e.g., rent, utilities, and administrative expenses) are based on a reasonable and documented methodology that can be reviewed and reperformed. 3. Retain Evidence of Implementation of Internal Controls - Implement review and approval controls over all requests for reimbursement, including review and approval of allocation of personnel and shared costs to specific funding sources. In circumstances where costs can be appropriately allocated to multiple funding sources, document the rationale for allocating the specific amount to each funding source. AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Views of responsible officials: Management respectfully disagrees with this Finding. Under Condition, the finding states, “Time and effort is being tracked and maintained by employees, including hours charged to the specific efforts for the programs.…” This is not accurate. Employees report their time worked each day, including the amount of time they worked on different projects if applicable. Employees report this in our commercial HRIS/Payroll system, where it is maintained and where it is reviewed and approved by the employee’s manager. The employees report the time they worked and which project(s) they worked on, their managers review and approve the time and the distribution, and the data is tracked and maintained in our HRIS/Payroll system (ExponentHR). Also under Condition, the finding states, “The specific amount of employee salaries and wages that are allocated to specific federal programs for reimbursement, and which are less than the amounts reflected in time and effort records, are determined by members of the finance staff.” It is correct that we would have to invoice sponsors for less than the total cost of an employee’s allocated time and effort if a sponsor’s budget is not sufficient to cover that full amount. This is the correct procedure to follow. Employees correctly continue documenting their hours worked on a specific project even if the budget is expended and the accounting staff can no longer bill the sponsor. If a particular grant does not have sufficient sponsor funds, then the Grants Accounting staff reduce the bill accordingly. Also under Condition, the finding states, “The rationale for the amount actually allocated for reimbursement, if less than the amount reflected in time and effort records, is not documented”. This is incorrect. Our monthly invoices to each sponsor accumulate, with each invoice clearly showing not only that month’s expense but also the year-to-date expense and remaining balance, which forces the sponsor invoice to stop at an amount less than the total cost of employees’ time and effort when the budget is exhausted. Also under Condition, the finding states, “Review and approval of the allocation of employee compensation to specific federal programs reimbursement requests is not maintained.” Each employee records their hours worked, and the project(s) on which they worked those hours, in our HRIS/Payroll system. The employee’s manager reviews and approves both the hours worked and the projects on which the hours were worked. This review and approval is maintained in our HRIS/Payroll system. Financial staff calculate the amount to allocate to specific federal programs based on these HRIS/Payroll system records (or other records such as clinical units produced, based on the terms of each grant). Separate accounting staff review the sponsor invoice and post the Receivable once they deem the invoice correct. Under Cause, the finding states, “…..the Organization has not implemented a structured process for documenting the extent to which allowable [emphasis added] compensation costs will be allocated for reimbursement to specific federal programs in instances where the allowable compensation cost exceeds the amount allocated for reimbursement.” This means that we do not have a AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) process for documenting how much of a payroll expense already deemed allowable on a particular grant will actually be invoiced there. We disagree and believe that the presence and documentation of a limited sponsor budget, along with cumulative tracking and documentation of compensation expenses against that budget, proves and documents why sometimes full compensation costs are not charged to a grant. Under Possible Effect, the finding addresses possible effects of “the absence of documented allocation methodologies.” We don’t agree that our process could lead to improper allocation between federal programs (as the finding states) nor to misstating federal expenditures (as the finding states). When a sponsor’s budget is insufficient to cover its appropriately allocated compensation costs, those costs are paid from unrestricted, non-federal funds. As also noted in the finding, no questioned costs were identified.
Finding number: 2023-006 Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance: Allowable Costs and Activities Federal Program #1 HIV Emergency Relief Project Grants: CFDA Number 93.914 Federal Program #2 HIV Care Formula Grants: CFDA Number 93.917 Federal Program #2 HIV Prevention Activities: CFDA Number: 93.941 Name of federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Name of pass-through entity: Multiple Repeat finding: No Criteria: 2 CFR §200.405 requires that costs be allocable to the federal program based on relative benefits received and be supported by appropriate documentation. For personnel costs, 2 CFR §200.430(i) requires that compensation for employees whose time is charged to federal awards be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed, such as time and effort reporting or equivalent documentation. For shared costs, 2 CFR §200.412-200.414 requires that cost allocations be based on documented methodologies that are reasonable and supported by underlying calculations. Condition: The Organization does not have formalized internal controls to support the rationale for allocation of shared costs and employee time across federal programs. Specifically: Time and effort is being tracked and maintained by employees, including hours charged to the specific efforts for the programs. Often, employees charge hours to specific programs in excess of amounts allocated to the program as expenditures. The specific amount of employee salaries and wages that are allocated to specific federal programs for reimbursement, and which are less than the amounts reflected in the time and effort records, are determined by members of the finance staff. The rationale for the amount actually allocated for reimbursement, if less than the amount reflected in the time and effort records, is not documented. Review and approval of the allocation of employee compensation to specific federal programs reimbursement requests is not maintained. Cause: The deficiency exists because the Organization has not implemented a structured process for documenting the extent to which allowable compensation costs will be allocated for reimbursement to specific federal programs in instances where the allowable compensation cost exceeds the amount allocated for reimbursement. AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Possible effect: The absence of documented allocation methodologies in instances where allowable compensation costs exceed the amount allocated for reimbursement increases the risk that: Costs may be improperly allocated between federal programs, resulting in potential noncompliance with federal cost principles. Federal expenditures may be misstated, impacting financial and grant reporting. Although questioned costs were not identified, the lack of specific supporting documentation and controls represents a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Questioned cost: None identified at this time. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization implement the following corrective actions: 1. Develop and Implement a Written Cost Allocation Policy – Establish a formal policy outlining the methodology for allocating shared costs and personnel time across programs, especially in instances where allowable costs exceed amounts allocated for reimbursement, ensuring compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 cost principles. 2. Document Allocation Methodologies for Shared Costs – Ensure that allocations for shared costs (e.g., rent, utilities, and administrative expenses) are based on a reasonable and documented methodology that can be reviewed and reperformed. 3. Retain Evidence of Implementation of Internal Controls - Implement review and approval controls over all requests for reimbursement, including review and approval of allocation of personnel and shared costs to specific funding sources. In circumstances where costs can be appropriately allocated to multiple funding sources, document the rationale for allocating the specific amount to each funding source. AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Views of responsible officials: Management respectfully disagrees with this Finding. Under Condition, the finding states, “Time and effort is being tracked and maintained by employees, including hours charged to the specific efforts for the programs.…” This is not accurate. Employees report their time worked each day, including the amount of time they worked on different projects if applicable. Employees report this in our commercial HRIS/Payroll system, where it is maintained and where it is reviewed and approved by the employee’s manager. The employees report the time they worked and which project(s) they worked on, their managers review and approve the time and the distribution, and the data is tracked and maintained in our HRIS/Payroll system (ExponentHR). Also under Condition, the finding states, “The specific amount of employee salaries and wages that are allocated to specific federal programs for reimbursement, and which are less than the amounts reflected in time and effort records, are determined by members of the finance staff.” It is correct that we would have to invoice sponsors for less than the total cost of an employee’s allocated time and effort if a sponsor’s budget is not sufficient to cover that full amount. This is the correct procedure to follow. Employees correctly continue documenting their hours worked on a specific project even if the budget is expended and the accounting staff can no longer bill the sponsor. If a particular grant does not have sufficient sponsor funds, then the Grants Accounting staff reduce the bill accordingly. Also under Condition, the finding states, “The rationale for the amount actually allocated for reimbursement, if less than the amount reflected in time and effort records, is not documented”. This is incorrect. Our monthly invoices to each sponsor accumulate, with each invoice clearly showing not only that month’s expense but also the year-to-date expense and remaining balance, which forces the sponsor invoice to stop at an amount less than the total cost of employees’ time and effort when the budget is exhausted. Also under Condition, the finding states, “Review and approval of the allocation of employee compensation to specific federal programs reimbursement requests is not maintained.” Each employee records their hours worked, and the project(s) on which they worked those hours, in our HRIS/Payroll system. The employee’s manager reviews and approves both the hours worked and the projects on which the hours were worked. This review and approval is maintained in our HRIS/Payroll system. Financial staff calculate the amount to allocate to specific federal programs based on these HRIS/Payroll system records (or other records such as clinical units produced, based on the terms of each grant). Separate accounting staff review the sponsor invoice and post the Receivable once they deem the invoice correct. Under Cause, the finding states, “…..the Organization has not implemented a structured process for documenting the extent to which allowable [emphasis added] compensation costs will be allocated for reimbursement to specific federal programs in instances where the allowable compensation cost exceeds the amount allocated for reimbursement.” This means that we do not have a AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) process for documenting how much of a payroll expense already deemed allowable on a particular grant will actually be invoiced there. We disagree and believe that the presence and documentation of a limited sponsor budget, along with cumulative tracking and documentation of compensation expenses against that budget, proves and documents why sometimes full compensation costs are not charged to a grant. Under Possible Effect, the finding addresses possible effects of “the absence of documented allocation methodologies.” We don’t agree that our process could lead to improper allocation between federal programs (as the finding states) nor to misstating federal expenditures (as the finding states). When a sponsor’s budget is insufficient to cover its appropriately allocated compensation costs, those costs are paid from unrestricted, non-federal funds. As also noted in the finding, no questioned costs were identified.
Finding number: 2023-006 Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance: Allowable Costs and Activities Federal Program #1 HIV Emergency Relief Project Grants: CFDA Number 93.914 Federal Program #2 HIV Care Formula Grants: CFDA Number 93.917 Federal Program #2 HIV Prevention Activities: CFDA Number: 93.941 Name of federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Name of pass-through entity: Multiple Repeat finding: No Criteria: 2 CFR §200.405 requires that costs be allocable to the federal program based on relative benefits received and be supported by appropriate documentation. For personnel costs, 2 CFR §200.430(i) requires that compensation for employees whose time is charged to federal awards be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed, such as time and effort reporting or equivalent documentation. For shared costs, 2 CFR §200.412-200.414 requires that cost allocations be based on documented methodologies that are reasonable and supported by underlying calculations. Condition: The Organization does not have formalized internal controls to support the rationale for allocation of shared costs and employee time across federal programs. Specifically: Time and effort is being tracked and maintained by employees, including hours charged to the specific efforts for the programs. Often, employees charge hours to specific programs in excess of amounts allocated to the program as expenditures. The specific amount of employee salaries and wages that are allocated to specific federal programs for reimbursement, and which are less than the amounts reflected in the time and effort records, are determined by members of the finance staff. The rationale for the amount actually allocated for reimbursement, if less than the amount reflected in the time and effort records, is not documented. Review and approval of the allocation of employee compensation to specific federal programs reimbursement requests is not maintained. Cause: The deficiency exists because the Organization has not implemented a structured process for documenting the extent to which allowable compensation costs will be allocated for reimbursement to specific federal programs in instances where the allowable compensation cost exceeds the amount allocated for reimbursement. AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Possible effect: The absence of documented allocation methodologies in instances where allowable compensation costs exceed the amount allocated for reimbursement increases the risk that: Costs may be improperly allocated between federal programs, resulting in potential noncompliance with federal cost principles. Federal expenditures may be misstated, impacting financial and grant reporting. Although questioned costs were not identified, the lack of specific supporting documentation and controls represents a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Questioned cost: None identified at this time. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization implement the following corrective actions: 1. Develop and Implement a Written Cost Allocation Policy – Establish a formal policy outlining the methodology for allocating shared costs and personnel time across programs, especially in instances where allowable costs exceed amounts allocated for reimbursement, ensuring compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 cost principles. 2. Document Allocation Methodologies for Shared Costs – Ensure that allocations for shared costs (e.g., rent, utilities, and administrative expenses) are based on a reasonable and documented methodology that can be reviewed and reperformed. 3. Retain Evidence of Implementation of Internal Controls - Implement review and approval controls over all requests for reimbursement, including review and approval of allocation of personnel and shared costs to specific funding sources. In circumstances where costs can be appropriately allocated to multiple funding sources, document the rationale for allocating the specific amount to each funding source. AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Views of responsible officials: Management respectfully disagrees with this Finding. Under Condition, the finding states, “Time and effort is being tracked and maintained by employees, including hours charged to the specific efforts for the programs.…” This is not accurate. Employees report their time worked each day, including the amount of time they worked on different projects if applicable. Employees report this in our commercial HRIS/Payroll system, where it is maintained and where it is reviewed and approved by the employee’s manager. The employees report the time they worked and which project(s) they worked on, their managers review and approve the time and the distribution, and the data is tracked and maintained in our HRIS/Payroll system (ExponentHR). Also under Condition, the finding states, “The specific amount of employee salaries and wages that are allocated to specific federal programs for reimbursement, and which are less than the amounts reflected in time and effort records, are determined by members of the finance staff.” It is correct that we would have to invoice sponsors for less than the total cost of an employee’s allocated time and effort if a sponsor’s budget is not sufficient to cover that full amount. This is the correct procedure to follow. Employees correctly continue documenting their hours worked on a specific project even if the budget is expended and the accounting staff can no longer bill the sponsor. If a particular grant does not have sufficient sponsor funds, then the Grants Accounting staff reduce the bill accordingly. Also under Condition, the finding states, “The rationale for the amount actually allocated for reimbursement, if less than the amount reflected in time and effort records, is not documented”. This is incorrect. Our monthly invoices to each sponsor accumulate, with each invoice clearly showing not only that month’s expense but also the year-to-date expense and remaining balance, which forces the sponsor invoice to stop at an amount less than the total cost of employees’ time and effort when the budget is exhausted. Also under Condition, the finding states, “Review and approval of the allocation of employee compensation to specific federal programs reimbursement requests is not maintained.” Each employee records their hours worked, and the project(s) on which they worked those hours, in our HRIS/Payroll system. The employee’s manager reviews and approves both the hours worked and the projects on which the hours were worked. This review and approval is maintained in our HRIS/Payroll system. Financial staff calculate the amount to allocate to specific federal programs based on these HRIS/Payroll system records (or other records such as clinical units produced, based on the terms of each grant). Separate accounting staff review the sponsor invoice and post the Receivable once they deem the invoice correct. Under Cause, the finding states, “…..the Organization has not implemented a structured process for documenting the extent to which allowable [emphasis added] compensation costs will be allocated for reimbursement to specific federal programs in instances where the allowable compensation cost exceeds the amount allocated for reimbursement.” This means that we do not have a AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) process for documenting how much of a payroll expense already deemed allowable on a particular grant will actually be invoiced there. We disagree and believe that the presence and documentation of a limited sponsor budget, along with cumulative tracking and documentation of compensation expenses against that budget, proves and documents why sometimes full compensation costs are not charged to a grant. Under Possible Effect, the finding addresses possible effects of “the absence of documented allocation methodologies.” We don’t agree that our process could lead to improper allocation between federal programs (as the finding states) nor to misstating federal expenditures (as the finding states). When a sponsor’s budget is insufficient to cover its appropriately allocated compensation costs, those costs are paid from unrestricted, non-federal funds. As also noted in the finding, no questioned costs were identified.
Finding number: 2023-006 Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance: Allowable Costs and Activities Federal Program #1 HIV Emergency Relief Project Grants: CFDA Number 93.914 Federal Program #2 HIV Care Formula Grants: CFDA Number 93.917 Federal Program #2 HIV Prevention Activities: CFDA Number: 93.941 Name of federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Name of pass-through entity: Multiple Repeat finding: No Criteria: 2 CFR §200.405 requires that costs be allocable to the federal program based on relative benefits received and be supported by appropriate documentation. For personnel costs, 2 CFR §200.430(i) requires that compensation for employees whose time is charged to federal awards be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed, such as time and effort reporting or equivalent documentation. For shared costs, 2 CFR §200.412-200.414 requires that cost allocations be based on documented methodologies that are reasonable and supported by underlying calculations. Condition: The Organization does not have formalized internal controls to support the rationale for allocation of shared costs and employee time across federal programs. Specifically: Time and effort is being tracked and maintained by employees, including hours charged to the specific efforts for the programs. Often, employees charge hours to specific programs in excess of amounts allocated to the program as expenditures. The specific amount of employee salaries and wages that are allocated to specific federal programs for reimbursement, and which are less than the amounts reflected in the time and effort records, are determined by members of the finance staff. The rationale for the amount actually allocated for reimbursement, if less than the amount reflected in the time and effort records, is not documented. Review and approval of the allocation of employee compensation to specific federal programs reimbursement requests is not maintained. Cause: The deficiency exists because the Organization has not implemented a structured process for documenting the extent to which allowable compensation costs will be allocated for reimbursement to specific federal programs in instances where the allowable compensation cost exceeds the amount allocated for reimbursement. AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Possible effect: The absence of documented allocation methodologies in instances where allowable compensation costs exceed the amount allocated for reimbursement increases the risk that: Costs may be improperly allocated between federal programs, resulting in potential noncompliance with federal cost principles. Federal expenditures may be misstated, impacting financial and grant reporting. Although questioned costs were not identified, the lack of specific supporting documentation and controls represents a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Questioned cost: None identified at this time. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization implement the following corrective actions: 1. Develop and Implement a Written Cost Allocation Policy – Establish a formal policy outlining the methodology for allocating shared costs and personnel time across programs, especially in instances where allowable costs exceed amounts allocated for reimbursement, ensuring compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 cost principles. 2. Document Allocation Methodologies for Shared Costs – Ensure that allocations for shared costs (e.g., rent, utilities, and administrative expenses) are based on a reasonable and documented methodology that can be reviewed and reperformed. 3. Retain Evidence of Implementation of Internal Controls - Implement review and approval controls over all requests for reimbursement, including review and approval of allocation of personnel and shared costs to specific funding sources. In circumstances where costs can be appropriately allocated to multiple funding sources, document the rationale for allocating the specific amount to each funding source. AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Views of responsible officials: Management respectfully disagrees with this Finding. Under Condition, the finding states, “Time and effort is being tracked and maintained by employees, including hours charged to the specific efforts for the programs.…” This is not accurate. Employees report their time worked each day, including the amount of time they worked on different projects if applicable. Employees report this in our commercial HRIS/Payroll system, where it is maintained and where it is reviewed and approved by the employee’s manager. The employees report the time they worked and which project(s) they worked on, their managers review and approve the time and the distribution, and the data is tracked and maintained in our HRIS/Payroll system (ExponentHR). Also under Condition, the finding states, “The specific amount of employee salaries and wages that are allocated to specific federal programs for reimbursement, and which are less than the amounts reflected in time and effort records, are determined by members of the finance staff.” It is correct that we would have to invoice sponsors for less than the total cost of an employee’s allocated time and effort if a sponsor’s budget is not sufficient to cover that full amount. This is the correct procedure to follow. Employees correctly continue documenting their hours worked on a specific project even if the budget is expended and the accounting staff can no longer bill the sponsor. If a particular grant does not have sufficient sponsor funds, then the Grants Accounting staff reduce the bill accordingly. Also under Condition, the finding states, “The rationale for the amount actually allocated for reimbursement, if less than the amount reflected in time and effort records, is not documented”. This is incorrect. Our monthly invoices to each sponsor accumulate, with each invoice clearly showing not only that month’s expense but also the year-to-date expense and remaining balance, which forces the sponsor invoice to stop at an amount less than the total cost of employees’ time and effort when the budget is exhausted. Also under Condition, the finding states, “Review and approval of the allocation of employee compensation to specific federal programs reimbursement requests is not maintained.” Each employee records their hours worked, and the project(s) on which they worked those hours, in our HRIS/Payroll system. The employee’s manager reviews and approves both the hours worked and the projects on which the hours were worked. This review and approval is maintained in our HRIS/Payroll system. Financial staff calculate the amount to allocate to specific federal programs based on these HRIS/Payroll system records (or other records such as clinical units produced, based on the terms of each grant). Separate accounting staff review the sponsor invoice and post the Receivable once they deem the invoice correct. Under Cause, the finding states, “…..the Organization has not implemented a structured process for documenting the extent to which allowable [emphasis added] compensation costs will be allocated for reimbursement to specific federal programs in instances where the allowable compensation cost exceeds the amount allocated for reimbursement.” This means that we do not have a AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) process for documenting how much of a payroll expense already deemed allowable on a particular grant will actually be invoiced there. We disagree and believe that the presence and documentation of a limited sponsor budget, along with cumulative tracking and documentation of compensation expenses against that budget, proves and documents why sometimes full compensation costs are not charged to a grant. Under Possible Effect, the finding addresses possible effects of “the absence of documented allocation methodologies.” We don’t agree that our process could lead to improper allocation between federal programs (as the finding states) nor to misstating federal expenditures (as the finding states). When a sponsor’s budget is insufficient to cover its appropriately allocated compensation costs, those costs are paid from unrestricted, non-federal funds. As also noted in the finding, no questioned costs were identified.
Finding number: 2023-006 Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance: Allowable Costs and Activities Federal Program #1 HIV Emergency Relief Project Grants: CFDA Number 93.914 Federal Program #2 HIV Care Formula Grants: CFDA Number 93.917 Federal Program #2 HIV Prevention Activities: CFDA Number: 93.941 Name of federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Name of pass-through entity: Multiple Repeat finding: No Criteria: 2 CFR §200.405 requires that costs be allocable to the federal program based on relative benefits received and be supported by appropriate documentation. For personnel costs, 2 CFR §200.430(i) requires that compensation for employees whose time is charged to federal awards be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed, such as time and effort reporting or equivalent documentation. For shared costs, 2 CFR §200.412-200.414 requires that cost allocations be based on documented methodologies that are reasonable and supported by underlying calculations. Condition: The Organization does not have formalized internal controls to support the rationale for allocation of shared costs and employee time across federal programs. Specifically: Time and effort is being tracked and maintained by employees, including hours charged to the specific efforts for the programs. Often, employees charge hours to specific programs in excess of amounts allocated to the program as expenditures. The specific amount of employee salaries and wages that are allocated to specific federal programs for reimbursement, and which are less than the amounts reflected in the time and effort records, are determined by members of the finance staff. The rationale for the amount actually allocated for reimbursement, if less than the amount reflected in the time and effort records, is not documented. Review and approval of the allocation of employee compensation to specific federal programs reimbursement requests is not maintained. Cause: The deficiency exists because the Organization has not implemented a structured process for documenting the extent to which allowable compensation costs will be allocated for reimbursement to specific federal programs in instances where the allowable compensation cost exceeds the amount allocated for reimbursement. AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Possible effect: The absence of documented allocation methodologies in instances where allowable compensation costs exceed the amount allocated for reimbursement increases the risk that: Costs may be improperly allocated between federal programs, resulting in potential noncompliance with federal cost principles. Federal expenditures may be misstated, impacting financial and grant reporting. Although questioned costs were not identified, the lack of specific supporting documentation and controls represents a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Questioned cost: None identified at this time. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization implement the following corrective actions: 1. Develop and Implement a Written Cost Allocation Policy – Establish a formal policy outlining the methodology for allocating shared costs and personnel time across programs, especially in instances where allowable costs exceed amounts allocated for reimbursement, ensuring compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 cost principles. 2. Document Allocation Methodologies for Shared Costs – Ensure that allocations for shared costs (e.g., rent, utilities, and administrative expenses) are based on a reasonable and documented methodology that can be reviewed and reperformed. 3. Retain Evidence of Implementation of Internal Controls - Implement review and approval controls over all requests for reimbursement, including review and approval of allocation of personnel and shared costs to specific funding sources. In circumstances where costs can be appropriately allocated to multiple funding sources, document the rationale for allocating the specific amount to each funding source. AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Views of responsible officials: Management respectfully disagrees with this Finding. Under Condition, the finding states, “Time and effort is being tracked and maintained by employees, including hours charged to the specific efforts for the programs.…” This is not accurate. Employees report their time worked each day, including the amount of time they worked on different projects if applicable. Employees report this in our commercial HRIS/Payroll system, where it is maintained and where it is reviewed and approved by the employee’s manager. The employees report the time they worked and which project(s) they worked on, their managers review and approve the time and the distribution, and the data is tracked and maintained in our HRIS/Payroll system (ExponentHR). Also under Condition, the finding states, “The specific amount of employee salaries and wages that are allocated to specific federal programs for reimbursement, and which are less than the amounts reflected in time and effort records, are determined by members of the finance staff.” It is correct that we would have to invoice sponsors for less than the total cost of an employee’s allocated time and effort if a sponsor’s budget is not sufficient to cover that full amount. This is the correct procedure to follow. Employees correctly continue documenting their hours worked on a specific project even if the budget is expended and the accounting staff can no longer bill the sponsor. If a particular grant does not have sufficient sponsor funds, then the Grants Accounting staff reduce the bill accordingly. Also under Condition, the finding states, “The rationale for the amount actually allocated for reimbursement, if less than the amount reflected in time and effort records, is not documented”. This is incorrect. Our monthly invoices to each sponsor accumulate, with each invoice clearly showing not only that month’s expense but also the year-to-date expense and remaining balance, which forces the sponsor invoice to stop at an amount less than the total cost of employees’ time and effort when the budget is exhausted. Also under Condition, the finding states, “Review and approval of the allocation of employee compensation to specific federal programs reimbursement requests is not maintained.” Each employee records their hours worked, and the project(s) on which they worked those hours, in our HRIS/Payroll system. The employee’s manager reviews and approves both the hours worked and the projects on which the hours were worked. This review and approval is maintained in our HRIS/Payroll system. Financial staff calculate the amount to allocate to specific federal programs based on these HRIS/Payroll system records (or other records such as clinical units produced, based on the terms of each grant). Separate accounting staff review the sponsor invoice and post the Receivable once they deem the invoice correct. Under Cause, the finding states, “…..the Organization has not implemented a structured process for documenting the extent to which allowable [emphasis added] compensation costs will be allocated for reimbursement to specific federal programs in instances where the allowable compensation cost exceeds the amount allocated for reimbursement.” This means that we do not have a AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) process for documenting how much of a payroll expense already deemed allowable on a particular grant will actually be invoiced there. We disagree and believe that the presence and documentation of a limited sponsor budget, along with cumulative tracking and documentation of compensation expenses against that budget, proves and documents why sometimes full compensation costs are not charged to a grant. Under Possible Effect, the finding addresses possible effects of “the absence of documented allocation methodologies.” We don’t agree that our process could lead to improper allocation between federal programs (as the finding states) nor to misstating federal expenditures (as the finding states). When a sponsor’s budget is insufficient to cover its appropriately allocated compensation costs, those costs are paid from unrestricted, non-federal funds. As also noted in the finding, no questioned costs were identified.
Finding number: 2023-006 Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance: Allowable Costs and Activities Federal Program #1 HIV Emergency Relief Project Grants: CFDA Number 93.914 Federal Program #2 HIV Care Formula Grants: CFDA Number 93.917 Federal Program #2 HIV Prevention Activities: CFDA Number: 93.941 Name of federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Name of pass-through entity: Multiple Repeat finding: No Criteria: 2 CFR §200.405 requires that costs be allocable to the federal program based on relative benefits received and be supported by appropriate documentation. For personnel costs, 2 CFR §200.430(i) requires that compensation for employees whose time is charged to federal awards be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed, such as time and effort reporting or equivalent documentation. For shared costs, 2 CFR §200.412-200.414 requires that cost allocations be based on documented methodologies that are reasonable and supported by underlying calculations. Condition: The Organization does not have formalized internal controls to support the rationale for allocation of shared costs and employee time across federal programs. Specifically: Time and effort is being tracked and maintained by employees, including hours charged to the specific efforts for the programs. Often, employees charge hours to specific programs in excess of amounts allocated to the program as expenditures. The specific amount of employee salaries and wages that are allocated to specific federal programs for reimbursement, and which are less than the amounts reflected in the time and effort records, are determined by members of the finance staff. The rationale for the amount actually allocated for reimbursement, if less than the amount reflected in the time and effort records, is not documented. Review and approval of the allocation of employee compensation to specific federal programs reimbursement requests is not maintained. Cause: The deficiency exists because the Organization has not implemented a structured process for documenting the extent to which allowable compensation costs will be allocated for reimbursement to specific federal programs in instances where the allowable compensation cost exceeds the amount allocated for reimbursement. AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Possible effect: The absence of documented allocation methodologies in instances where allowable compensation costs exceed the amount allocated for reimbursement increases the risk that: Costs may be improperly allocated between federal programs, resulting in potential noncompliance with federal cost principles. Federal expenditures may be misstated, impacting financial and grant reporting. Although questioned costs were not identified, the lack of specific supporting documentation and controls represents a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Questioned cost: None identified at this time. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization implement the following corrective actions: 1. Develop and Implement a Written Cost Allocation Policy – Establish a formal policy outlining the methodology for allocating shared costs and personnel time across programs, especially in instances where allowable costs exceed amounts allocated for reimbursement, ensuring compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 cost principles. 2. Document Allocation Methodologies for Shared Costs – Ensure that allocations for shared costs (e.g., rent, utilities, and administrative expenses) are based on a reasonable and documented methodology that can be reviewed and reperformed. 3. Retain Evidence of Implementation of Internal Controls - Implement review and approval controls over all requests for reimbursement, including review and approval of allocation of personnel and shared costs to specific funding sources. In circumstances where costs can be appropriately allocated to multiple funding sources, document the rationale for allocating the specific amount to each funding source. AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Views of responsible officials: Management respectfully disagrees with this Finding. Under Condition, the finding states, “Time and effort is being tracked and maintained by employees, including hours charged to the specific efforts for the programs.…” This is not accurate. Employees report their time worked each day, including the amount of time they worked on different projects if applicable. Employees report this in our commercial HRIS/Payroll system, where it is maintained and where it is reviewed and approved by the employee’s manager. The employees report the time they worked and which project(s) they worked on, their managers review and approve the time and the distribution, and the data is tracked and maintained in our HRIS/Payroll system (ExponentHR). Also under Condition, the finding states, “The specific amount of employee salaries and wages that are allocated to specific federal programs for reimbursement, and which are less than the amounts reflected in time and effort records, are determined by members of the finance staff.” It is correct that we would have to invoice sponsors for less than the total cost of an employee’s allocated time and effort if a sponsor’s budget is not sufficient to cover that full amount. This is the correct procedure to follow. Employees correctly continue documenting their hours worked on a specific project even if the budget is expended and the accounting staff can no longer bill the sponsor. If a particular grant does not have sufficient sponsor funds, then the Grants Accounting staff reduce the bill accordingly. Also under Condition, the finding states, “The rationale for the amount actually allocated for reimbursement, if less than the amount reflected in time and effort records, is not documented”. This is incorrect. Our monthly invoices to each sponsor accumulate, with each invoice clearly showing not only that month’s expense but also the year-to-date expense and remaining balance, which forces the sponsor invoice to stop at an amount less than the total cost of employees’ time and effort when the budget is exhausted. Also under Condition, the finding states, “Review and approval of the allocation of employee compensation to specific federal programs reimbursement requests is not maintained.” Each employee records their hours worked, and the project(s) on which they worked those hours, in our HRIS/Payroll system. The employee’s manager reviews and approves both the hours worked and the projects on which the hours were worked. This review and approval is maintained in our HRIS/Payroll system. Financial staff calculate the amount to allocate to specific federal programs based on these HRIS/Payroll system records (or other records such as clinical units produced, based on the terms of each grant). Separate accounting staff review the sponsor invoice and post the Receivable once they deem the invoice correct. Under Cause, the finding states, “…..the Organization has not implemented a structured process for documenting the extent to which allowable [emphasis added] compensation costs will be allocated for reimbursement to specific federal programs in instances where the allowable compensation cost exceeds the amount allocated for reimbursement.” This means that we do not have a AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) process for documenting how much of a payroll expense already deemed allowable on a particular grant will actually be invoiced there. We disagree and believe that the presence and documentation of a limited sponsor budget, along with cumulative tracking and documentation of compensation expenses against that budget, proves and documents why sometimes full compensation costs are not charged to a grant. Under Possible Effect, the finding addresses possible effects of “the absence of documented allocation methodologies.” We don’t agree that our process could lead to improper allocation between federal programs (as the finding states) nor to misstating federal expenditures (as the finding states). When a sponsor’s budget is insufficient to cover its appropriately allocated compensation costs, those costs are paid from unrestricted, non-federal funds. As also noted in the finding, no questioned costs were identified.
Finding number: 2023-006 Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance: Allowable Costs and Activities Federal Program #1 HIV Emergency Relief Project Grants: CFDA Number 93.914 Federal Program #2 HIV Care Formula Grants: CFDA Number 93.917 Federal Program #2 HIV Prevention Activities: CFDA Number: 93.941 Name of federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Name of pass-through entity: Multiple Repeat finding: No Criteria: 2 CFR §200.405 requires that costs be allocable to the federal program based on relative benefits received and be supported by appropriate documentation. For personnel costs, 2 CFR §200.430(i) requires that compensation for employees whose time is charged to federal awards be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed, such as time and effort reporting or equivalent documentation. For shared costs, 2 CFR §200.412-200.414 requires that cost allocations be based on documented methodologies that are reasonable and supported by underlying calculations. Condition: The Organization does not have formalized internal controls to support the rationale for allocation of shared costs and employee time across federal programs. Specifically: Time and effort is being tracked and maintained by employees, including hours charged to the specific efforts for the programs. Often, employees charge hours to specific programs in excess of amounts allocated to the program as expenditures. The specific amount of employee salaries and wages that are allocated to specific federal programs for reimbursement, and which are less than the amounts reflected in the time and effort records, are determined by members of the finance staff. The rationale for the amount actually allocated for reimbursement, if less than the amount reflected in the time and effort records, is not documented. Review and approval of the allocation of employee compensation to specific federal programs reimbursement requests is not maintained. Cause: The deficiency exists because the Organization has not implemented a structured process for documenting the extent to which allowable compensation costs will be allocated for reimbursement to specific federal programs in instances where the allowable compensation cost exceeds the amount allocated for reimbursement. AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Possible effect: The absence of documented allocation methodologies in instances where allowable compensation costs exceed the amount allocated for reimbursement increases the risk that: Costs may be improperly allocated between federal programs, resulting in potential noncompliance with federal cost principles. Federal expenditures may be misstated, impacting financial and grant reporting. Although questioned costs were not identified, the lack of specific supporting documentation and controls represents a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Questioned cost: None identified at this time. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization implement the following corrective actions: 1. Develop and Implement a Written Cost Allocation Policy – Establish a formal policy outlining the methodology for allocating shared costs and personnel time across programs, especially in instances where allowable costs exceed amounts allocated for reimbursement, ensuring compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 cost principles. 2. Document Allocation Methodologies for Shared Costs – Ensure that allocations for shared costs (e.g., rent, utilities, and administrative expenses) are based on a reasonable and documented methodology that can be reviewed and reperformed. 3. Retain Evidence of Implementation of Internal Controls - Implement review and approval controls over all requests for reimbursement, including review and approval of allocation of personnel and shared costs to specific funding sources. In circumstances where costs can be appropriately allocated to multiple funding sources, document the rationale for allocating the specific amount to each funding source. AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Views of responsible officials: Management respectfully disagrees with this Finding. Under Condition, the finding states, “Time and effort is being tracked and maintained by employees, including hours charged to the specific efforts for the programs.…” This is not accurate. Employees report their time worked each day, including the amount of time they worked on different projects if applicable. Employees report this in our commercial HRIS/Payroll system, where it is maintained and where it is reviewed and approved by the employee’s manager. The employees report the time they worked and which project(s) they worked on, their managers review and approve the time and the distribution, and the data is tracked and maintained in our HRIS/Payroll system (ExponentHR). Also under Condition, the finding states, “The specific amount of employee salaries and wages that are allocated to specific federal programs for reimbursement, and which are less than the amounts reflected in time and effort records, are determined by members of the finance staff.” It is correct that we would have to invoice sponsors for less than the total cost of an employee’s allocated time and effort if a sponsor’s budget is not sufficient to cover that full amount. This is the correct procedure to follow. Employees correctly continue documenting their hours worked on a specific project even if the budget is expended and the accounting staff can no longer bill the sponsor. If a particular grant does not have sufficient sponsor funds, then the Grants Accounting staff reduce the bill accordingly. Also under Condition, the finding states, “The rationale for the amount actually allocated for reimbursement, if less than the amount reflected in time and effort records, is not documented”. This is incorrect. Our monthly invoices to each sponsor accumulate, with each invoice clearly showing not only that month’s expense but also the year-to-date expense and remaining balance, which forces the sponsor invoice to stop at an amount less than the total cost of employees’ time and effort when the budget is exhausted. Also under Condition, the finding states, “Review and approval of the allocation of employee compensation to specific federal programs reimbursement requests is not maintained.” Each employee records their hours worked, and the project(s) on which they worked those hours, in our HRIS/Payroll system. The employee’s manager reviews and approves both the hours worked and the projects on which the hours were worked. This review and approval is maintained in our HRIS/Payroll system. Financial staff calculate the amount to allocate to specific federal programs based on these HRIS/Payroll system records (or other records such as clinical units produced, based on the terms of each grant). Separate accounting staff review the sponsor invoice and post the Receivable once they deem the invoice correct. Under Cause, the finding states, “…..the Organization has not implemented a structured process for documenting the extent to which allowable [emphasis added] compensation costs will be allocated for reimbursement to specific federal programs in instances where the allowable compensation cost exceeds the amount allocated for reimbursement.” This means that we do not have a AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) process for documenting how much of a payroll expense already deemed allowable on a particular grant will actually be invoiced there. We disagree and believe that the presence and documentation of a limited sponsor budget, along with cumulative tracking and documentation of compensation expenses against that budget, proves and documents why sometimes full compensation costs are not charged to a grant. Under Possible Effect, the finding addresses possible effects of “the absence of documented allocation methodologies.” We don’t agree that our process could lead to improper allocation between federal programs (as the finding states) nor to misstating federal expenditures (as the finding states). When a sponsor’s budget is insufficient to cover its appropriately allocated compensation costs, those costs are paid from unrestricted, non-federal funds. As also noted in the finding, no questioned costs were identified.
Finding number: 2023-006 Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance: Allowable Costs and Activities Federal Program #1 HIV Emergency Relief Project Grants: CFDA Number 93.914 Federal Program #2 HIV Care Formula Grants: CFDA Number 93.917 Federal Program #2 HIV Prevention Activities: CFDA Number: 93.941 Name of federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Name of pass-through entity: Multiple Repeat finding: No Criteria: 2 CFR §200.405 requires that costs be allocable to the federal program based on relative benefits received and be supported by appropriate documentation. For personnel costs, 2 CFR §200.430(i) requires that compensation for employees whose time is charged to federal awards be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed, such as time and effort reporting or equivalent documentation. For shared costs, 2 CFR §200.412-200.414 requires that cost allocations be based on documented methodologies that are reasonable and supported by underlying calculations. Condition: The Organization does not have formalized internal controls to support the rationale for allocation of shared costs and employee time across federal programs. Specifically: Time and effort is being tracked and maintained by employees, including hours charged to the specific efforts for the programs. Often, employees charge hours to specific programs in excess of amounts allocated to the program as expenditures. The specific amount of employee salaries and wages that are allocated to specific federal programs for reimbursement, and which are less than the amounts reflected in the time and effort records, are determined by members of the finance staff. The rationale for the amount actually allocated for reimbursement, if less than the amount reflected in the time and effort records, is not documented. Review and approval of the allocation of employee compensation to specific federal programs reimbursement requests is not maintained. Cause: The deficiency exists because the Organization has not implemented a structured process for documenting the extent to which allowable compensation costs will be allocated for reimbursement to specific federal programs in instances where the allowable compensation cost exceeds the amount allocated for reimbursement. AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Possible effect: The absence of documented allocation methodologies in instances where allowable compensation costs exceed the amount allocated for reimbursement increases the risk that: Costs may be improperly allocated between federal programs, resulting in potential noncompliance with federal cost principles. Federal expenditures may be misstated, impacting financial and grant reporting. Although questioned costs were not identified, the lack of specific supporting documentation and controls represents a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Questioned cost: None identified at this time. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization implement the following corrective actions: 1. Develop and Implement a Written Cost Allocation Policy – Establish a formal policy outlining the methodology for allocating shared costs and personnel time across programs, especially in instances where allowable costs exceed amounts allocated for reimbursement, ensuring compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 cost principles. 2. Document Allocation Methodologies for Shared Costs – Ensure that allocations for shared costs (e.g., rent, utilities, and administrative expenses) are based on a reasonable and documented methodology that can be reviewed and reperformed. 3. Retain Evidence of Implementation of Internal Controls - Implement review and approval controls over all requests for reimbursement, including review and approval of allocation of personnel and shared costs to specific funding sources. In circumstances where costs can be appropriately allocated to multiple funding sources, document the rationale for allocating the specific amount to each funding source. AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Views of responsible officials: Management respectfully disagrees with this Finding. Under Condition, the finding states, “Time and effort is being tracked and maintained by employees, including hours charged to the specific efforts for the programs.…” This is not accurate. Employees report their time worked each day, including the amount of time they worked on different projects if applicable. Employees report this in our commercial HRIS/Payroll system, where it is maintained and where it is reviewed and approved by the employee’s manager. The employees report the time they worked and which project(s) they worked on, their managers review and approve the time and the distribution, and the data is tracked and maintained in our HRIS/Payroll system (ExponentHR). Also under Condition, the finding states, “The specific amount of employee salaries and wages that are allocated to specific federal programs for reimbursement, and which are less than the amounts reflected in time and effort records, are determined by members of the finance staff.” It is correct that we would have to invoice sponsors for less than the total cost of an employee’s allocated time and effort if a sponsor’s budget is not sufficient to cover that full amount. This is the correct procedure to follow. Employees correctly continue documenting their hours worked on a specific project even if the budget is expended and the accounting staff can no longer bill the sponsor. If a particular grant does not have sufficient sponsor funds, then the Grants Accounting staff reduce the bill accordingly. Also under Condition, the finding states, “The rationale for the amount actually allocated for reimbursement, if less than the amount reflected in time and effort records, is not documented”. This is incorrect. Our monthly invoices to each sponsor accumulate, with each invoice clearly showing not only that month’s expense but also the year-to-date expense and remaining balance, which forces the sponsor invoice to stop at an amount less than the total cost of employees’ time and effort when the budget is exhausted. Also under Condition, the finding states, “Review and approval of the allocation of employee compensation to specific federal programs reimbursement requests is not maintained.” Each employee records their hours worked, and the project(s) on which they worked those hours, in our HRIS/Payroll system. The employee’s manager reviews and approves both the hours worked and the projects on which the hours were worked. This review and approval is maintained in our HRIS/Payroll system. Financial staff calculate the amount to allocate to specific federal programs based on these HRIS/Payroll system records (or other records such as clinical units produced, based on the terms of each grant). Separate accounting staff review the sponsor invoice and post the Receivable once they deem the invoice correct. Under Cause, the finding states, “…..the Organization has not implemented a structured process for documenting the extent to which allowable [emphasis added] compensation costs will be allocated for reimbursement to specific federal programs in instances where the allowable compensation cost exceeds the amount allocated for reimbursement.” This means that we do not have a AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) process for documenting how much of a payroll expense already deemed allowable on a particular grant will actually be invoiced there. We disagree and believe that the presence and documentation of a limited sponsor budget, along with cumulative tracking and documentation of compensation expenses against that budget, proves and documents why sometimes full compensation costs are not charged to a grant. Under Possible Effect, the finding addresses possible effects of “the absence of documented allocation methodologies.” We don’t agree that our process could lead to improper allocation between federal programs (as the finding states) nor to misstating federal expenditures (as the finding states). When a sponsor’s budget is insufficient to cover its appropriately allocated compensation costs, those costs are paid from unrestricted, non-federal funds. As also noted in the finding, no questioned costs were identified.
Finding number: 2023-006 Significant Deficiency in Internal Control Over Compliance: Allowable Costs and Activities Federal Program #1 HIV Emergency Relief Project Grants: CFDA Number 93.914 Federal Program #2 HIV Care Formula Grants: CFDA Number 93.917 Federal Program #2 HIV Prevention Activities: CFDA Number: 93.941 Name of federal agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Name of pass-through entity: Multiple Repeat finding: No Criteria: 2 CFR §200.405 requires that costs be allocable to the federal program based on relative benefits received and be supported by appropriate documentation. For personnel costs, 2 CFR §200.430(i) requires that compensation for employees whose time is charged to federal awards be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed, such as time and effort reporting or equivalent documentation. For shared costs, 2 CFR §200.412-200.414 requires that cost allocations be based on documented methodologies that are reasonable and supported by underlying calculations. Condition: The Organization does not have formalized internal controls to support the rationale for allocation of shared costs and employee time across federal programs. Specifically: Time and effort is being tracked and maintained by employees, including hours charged to the specific efforts for the programs. Often, employees charge hours to specific programs in excess of amounts allocated to the program as expenditures. The specific amount of employee salaries and wages that are allocated to specific federal programs for reimbursement, and which are less than the amounts reflected in the time and effort records, are determined by members of the finance staff. The rationale for the amount actually allocated for reimbursement, if less than the amount reflected in the time and effort records, is not documented. Review and approval of the allocation of employee compensation to specific federal programs reimbursement requests is not maintained. Cause: The deficiency exists because the Organization has not implemented a structured process for documenting the extent to which allowable compensation costs will be allocated for reimbursement to specific federal programs in instances where the allowable compensation cost exceeds the amount allocated for reimbursement. AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Possible effect: The absence of documented allocation methodologies in instances where allowable compensation costs exceed the amount allocated for reimbursement increases the risk that: Costs may be improperly allocated between federal programs, resulting in potential noncompliance with federal cost principles. Federal expenditures may be misstated, impacting financial and grant reporting. Although questioned costs were not identified, the lack of specific supporting documentation and controls represents a significant deficiency in internal control over compliance. Questioned cost: None identified at this time. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization implement the following corrective actions: 1. Develop and Implement a Written Cost Allocation Policy – Establish a formal policy outlining the methodology for allocating shared costs and personnel time across programs, especially in instances where allowable costs exceed amounts allocated for reimbursement, ensuring compliance with 2 CFR Part 200 cost principles. 2. Document Allocation Methodologies for Shared Costs – Ensure that allocations for shared costs (e.g., rent, utilities, and administrative expenses) are based on a reasonable and documented methodology that can be reviewed and reperformed. 3. Retain Evidence of Implementation of Internal Controls - Implement review and approval controls over all requests for reimbursement, including review and approval of allocation of personnel and shared costs to specific funding sources. In circumstances where costs can be appropriately allocated to multiple funding sources, document the rationale for allocating the specific amount to each funding source. AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) Views of responsible officials: Management respectfully disagrees with this Finding. Under Condition, the finding states, “Time and effort is being tracked and maintained by employees, including hours charged to the specific efforts for the programs.…” This is not accurate. Employees report their time worked each day, including the amount of time they worked on different projects if applicable. Employees report this in our commercial HRIS/Payroll system, where it is maintained and where it is reviewed and approved by the employee’s manager. The employees report the time they worked and which project(s) they worked on, their managers review and approve the time and the distribution, and the data is tracked and maintained in our HRIS/Payroll system (ExponentHR). Also under Condition, the finding states, “The specific amount of employee salaries and wages that are allocated to specific federal programs for reimbursement, and which are less than the amounts reflected in time and effort records, are determined by members of the finance staff.” It is correct that we would have to invoice sponsors for less than the total cost of an employee’s allocated time and effort if a sponsor’s budget is not sufficient to cover that full amount. This is the correct procedure to follow. Employees correctly continue documenting their hours worked on a specific project even if the budget is expended and the accounting staff can no longer bill the sponsor. If a particular grant does not have sufficient sponsor funds, then the Grants Accounting staff reduce the bill accordingly. Also under Condition, the finding states, “The rationale for the amount actually allocated for reimbursement, if less than the amount reflected in time and effort records, is not documented”. This is incorrect. Our monthly invoices to each sponsor accumulate, with each invoice clearly showing not only that month’s expense but also the year-to-date expense and remaining balance, which forces the sponsor invoice to stop at an amount less than the total cost of employees’ time and effort when the budget is exhausted. Also under Condition, the finding states, “Review and approval of the allocation of employee compensation to specific federal programs reimbursement requests is not maintained.” Each employee records their hours worked, and the project(s) on which they worked those hours, in our HRIS/Payroll system. The employee’s manager reviews and approves both the hours worked and the projects on which the hours were worked. This review and approval is maintained in our HRIS/Payroll system. Financial staff calculate the amount to allocate to specific federal programs based on these HRIS/Payroll system records (or other records such as clinical units produced, based on the terms of each grant). Separate accounting staff review the sponsor invoice and post the Receivable once they deem the invoice correct. Under Cause, the finding states, “…..the Organization has not implemented a structured process for documenting the extent to which allowable [emphasis added] compensation costs will be allocated for reimbursement to specific federal programs in instances where the allowable compensation cost exceeds the amount allocated for reimbursement.” This means that we do not have a AIDS Arms, Inc. dba Prism Health North Texas and Subsidiary Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs For the Year Ended December 31, 2023 SECTION III - SUMMARY OF FEDERAL AWARD FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (continued) process for documenting how much of a payroll expense already deemed allowable on a particular grant will actually be invoiced there. We disagree and believe that the presence and documentation of a limited sponsor budget, along with cumulative tracking and documentation of compensation expenses against that budget, proves and documents why sometimes full compensation costs are not charged to a grant. Under Possible Effect, the finding addresses possible effects of “the absence of documented allocation methodologies.” We don’t agree that our process could lead to improper allocation between federal programs (as the finding states) nor to misstating federal expenditures (as the finding states). When a sponsor’s budget is insufficient to cover its appropriately allocated compensation costs, those costs are paid from unrestricted, non-federal funds. As also noted in the finding, no questioned costs were identified.
Finding No.2023-003: Improve Controls Over Expense Reporting and Payroll Charges Assistance Listing Number: 93.566 Assistance Listing Program Title: Refugee and Entrant Assistance – State - Administered Programs Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Passed Through Entity: 1. San Diego Refugee Communities Coalition/United Women of East Africa Support Team 2. California Department of Social Services (CDSS) Federal Award Number: 1. Not available in the contract 2. ACS22-05-CAIR-A1 Federal Award Year: 1. February 1, 2023 – March 31, 2024 2. November 1, 2022 – March 31, 2025 Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Criteria or Specific Requirements: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.403 and 200.405, costs charged to a federal award must be necessary, reasonable, and allocable. In addition, 2 CFR 200.430 Compensation-personal services, provides that compensation for personal services must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must be supported by a system of internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Condition: During our testing of 21 non-payroll expenses, we identified one instance wherein translation services amounting to $795, provided by a staff member, were charged under professional fees, even though the individual's salary was recorded and billed under salary expenses. Additionally, in our testing of 25 payroll expenses, we identified one instance of overbilling in the amount $622. This occurred because the payroll charge was based on budgeted Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) rather than the actual time worked. Cause: CAIR-CA's current internal controls for reviewing billings under the federal program were not sufficient to consistently prevent or detect duplicate or inaccurate charges. Furthermore, CAIR-CA lacked adequate internal controls to ensure that payroll allocations were based on actual time worked on the federal program. Effect: These control deficiencies resulted in the overbilling of federal funds. Questioned Cost: $1,417 Recommendation: To ensure compliance with the Uniform Guidance, we recommend that CAIR-CA strengthen its internal controls over expense reporting by implementing enhanced review procedures to verify the allowability of costs charged to federal awards. Additionally, CAIR-CA should establish formal procedures to ensure that payroll charges to federal programs are based on actual time and effort records. Management should conduct regular reviews and make necessary adjustments to payroll allocations to accurately reflect the work performed on federally funded activities. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan: Management concurs with the finding and has already initiated enhancements to its review process to ensure that expense reports are consistently reviewed and approved by both supervisors and finance personnel prior to being charged to federal awards. These steps are designed to further strengthen internal controls and support compliance with federal requirements. In addition, Finance staff are formalizing procedures to reconcile payroll charges on a regular basis to ensure compliance with federal requirements and to confirm that all charges to federal programs are supported by actual time and effort records. Responsible person: Jackie Ramirez, Operations & Finance Associate Director Expected Implementation date: October 31, 2025
Finding No.2023-003: Improve Controls Over Expense Reporting and Payroll Charges Assistance Listing Number: 93.566 Assistance Listing Program Title: Refugee and Entrant Assistance – State - Administered Programs Federal Agency: Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) Passed Through Entity: 1. San Diego Refugee Communities Coalition/United Women of East Africa Support Team 2. California Department of Social Services (CDSS) Federal Award Number: 1. Not available in the contract 2. ACS22-05-CAIR-A1 Federal Award Year: 1. February 1, 2023 – March 31, 2024 2. November 1, 2022 – March 31, 2025 Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Criteria or Specific Requirements: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.403 and 200.405, costs charged to a federal award must be necessary, reasonable, and allocable. In addition, 2 CFR 200.430 Compensation-personal services, provides that compensation for personal services must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must be supported by a system of internal control that provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated. Condition: During our testing of 21 non-payroll expenses, we identified one instance wherein translation services amounting to $795, provided by a staff member, were charged under professional fees, even though the individual's salary was recorded and billed under salary expenses. Additionally, in our testing of 25 payroll expenses, we identified one instance of overbilling in the amount $622. This occurred because the payroll charge was based on budgeted Full Time Equivalents (FTEs) rather than the actual time worked. Cause: CAIR-CA's current internal controls for reviewing billings under the federal program were not sufficient to consistently prevent or detect duplicate or inaccurate charges. Furthermore, CAIR-CA lacked adequate internal controls to ensure that payroll allocations were based on actual time worked on the federal program. Effect: These control deficiencies resulted in the overbilling of federal funds. Questioned Cost: $1,417 Recommendation: To ensure compliance with the Uniform Guidance, we recommend that CAIR-CA strengthen its internal controls over expense reporting by implementing enhanced review procedures to verify the allowability of costs charged to federal awards. Additionally, CAIR-CA should establish formal procedures to ensure that payroll charges to federal programs are based on actual time and effort records. Management should conduct regular reviews and make necessary adjustments to payroll allocations to accurately reflect the work performed on federally funded activities. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan: Management concurs with the finding and has already initiated enhancements to its review process to ensure that expense reports are consistently reviewed and approved by both supervisors and finance personnel prior to being charged to federal awards. These steps are designed to further strengthen internal controls and support compliance with federal requirements. In addition, Finance staff are formalizing procedures to reconcile payroll charges on a regular basis to ensure compliance with federal requirements and to confirm that all charges to federal programs are supported by actual time and effort records. Responsible person: Jackie Ramirez, Operations & Finance Associate Director Expected Implementation date: October 31, 2025
Finding #2023-005 Federal Program: 21.027 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (CSLFRF) Repeat Finding: No Condition: During our audit of CSLFRF expenditures, we noted that the Organization charged $37,600 in office rent costs entirely to one CSLFRF grant (CSLFRF – Juntos). However, the rented office space was used to support activities under the CSLFRF – Juntos grant, a separate CSLFRF grant (CSLFRF – Centro Comunitario) and the general operations of the Organization. The Organization did not allocate rent costs between the two grants and general operations based on relative benefits received, resulting in an improper direct charge to a single award. Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 200.405, costs must be allocated to federal awards in accordance with the relative benefits received. Additionally, 2 CFR § 200.403 requires that costs charged to federal awards be necessary, reasonable, and allocable. Costs benefiting more than one award should be distributed among those awards to reflect the proportionate benefit each award received. Cause: The Organization did not properly implement procedures to allocate shared costs among multiple federal awards, resulting in the entire rent expense being charged to a single grant rather than distributed proportionally between both CSLFRF grants. Effect: The Organization has two grants under the CSLFRF program (Juntos Adelante and Centro Communitario Adelante on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards). The Organization charged $37,600 to the Juntos Adelante grant; however, determined that $4,324 should have been expensed under the Centro Communitario Adelante grant and $8,836 should not have been charged to either grant based on the proportionate benefit. Context: During testing of rent expenditures for the CSLFRF program, we noted the Organization’s lease agreement covered office space used by staff working on both Grant A and Grant B. The Organization confirmed no cost allocation methodology was used to split costs between the grants. Questioned Costs: See “Effect” Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization reallocate rent costs between the CSLFRF grants in accordance with the relative benefit each grant receives; develop and implement written procedures to allocate shared costs appropriately among federal awards; provide training to accounting staff on cost allocation requirements under Uniform Guidance. Reporting Views of Responsible Officials: Management concurs with the finding and will develop an allocation methodology for shared costs and reclassify expenses between CSLFRF grants. Management will work with the grantor to correct the costs charged to each grant.
Assistance Listing, Federal Agency, and Program Name – 93.866, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Aging Research – Role of Desumoylase SENP6 in Joint Aging and Osteoarthritis Development, Research and Development Center Federal Award Identification Number and Year – R01 AG061086 Pass through Entity – N/A – direct award Finding Type - Significant deficiency and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria – In accordance with 2 CFR 200.405, costs are allocable to a particular federal award if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. Costs must be incurred specifically for a federal award and if costs benefit multiple grants, the costs can be allocated between federal and non-federal grants using a reasonable allocation method. Allocable costs can be requested for reimbursement by the federal agency. Condition – VAIA’s controls requiring investigators to monitor expenses, ensure that costs benefitting multiple projects are allocated using a reasonable methodology, as required by Uniform Guidance, and ensure that allocation errors are timely corrected were not supported by adequate training of investigators and their delegates. Questioned Costs – N/A Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed – N/A Context - In December of 2023, VAIA identified it did not properly calculate an allocation of certain costs incurred that benefited both federal and institutionally funded projects. VAIA management performed a look back analysis of these costs and determined that only 50 percent of the costs benefited the federal grant activities instead of the 100 percent originally reported to and reimbursed by the federal agency, resulting in excess draws of approximately $248,000, including approximately $30,000 for the year ending November 30, 2023. The approximate $30,000 includes approximately $16,000 of direct costs and approximately $14,000 of indirect using VAIA’s negotiated rate. VAIA notified the funding agency of this error and reimbursed the federal agency in February 2024. The amount reported on the accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards for the year ended November 30, 2023 does not include any of these unallowable charges. Cause and Effect – VAIA’s training of investigators and their delegates regarding expense monitoring, allocation of costs benefitting multiple projects using reasonable methodologies, and the timely correction of allocation errors was inadequate and resulted in VAIA drawing down funds to which they were not entitled. Recommendation – We recommend that VAIA review its procedures and controls to ensure that principal investigators over grants funds are properly trained and knowledgeable regarding allocation of expenditures between programs. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan - VAIA requires laboratory personnel to review and approve monthly Vivarium transactions by protocol, since investigators and their delegates are the only individuals at VAIA in a position to know with certainty how Vivarium costs proportionately benefit multiple funding sources. Following VAIA’s customary review and approval process, VAIA’s internal controls subsequently identified an improperly calculated allocation. Taking swift action, the allocation was corrected, and funds were returned to the Federal Government within 90 days of identifying improper allocation as required by NIH Grants Policy Statement section 7.5. VAIA management disclosed this correction to our external auditors and the award’s Grant Management Officer. VAI’s corrective action plan for Vivarium charges includes the following: - Deploying an automated front-end solution that requires a protocol review and approval by our IACUC office before a protocol is made available for use by individual sponsored projects. - Evaluating additional opportunities to utilize technology to enhance the control environment, particularly with respect to cost allocation of vivarium charges, - Ensuring proper allocation through three meetings per laboratory in 2024 to review Vivarium costs charged to federally sponsored projects. - Providing additional continuing education on cost allocation principles for those making allocation determinations
Assistance Listing, Federal Agency, and Program Name – 93.866, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, Aging Research – Role of Desumoylase SENP6 in Joint Aging and Osteoarthritis Development, Research and Development Center Federal Award Identification Number and Year – R01 AG061086 Pass through Entity – N/A – direct award Finding Type - Significant deficiency and material noncompliance with laws and regulations Repeat Finding - No Criteria – In accordance with 2 CFR 200.405, costs are allocable to a particular federal award if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that federal award or cost objective in accordance with relative benefits received. Costs must be incurred specifically for a federal award and if costs benefit multiple grants, the costs can be allocated between federal and non-federal grants using a reasonable allocation method. Allocable costs can be requested for reimbursement by the federal agency. Condition – VAIA’s controls requiring investigators to monitor expenses, ensure that costs benefitting multiple projects are allocated using a reasonable methodology, as required by Uniform Guidance, and ensure that allocation errors are timely corrected were not supported by adequate training of investigators and their delegates. Questioned Costs – N/A Identification of How Questioned Costs Were Computed – N/A Context - In December of 2023, VAIA identified it did not properly calculate an allocation of certain costs incurred that benefited both federal and institutionally funded projects. VAIA management performed a look back analysis of these costs and determined that only 50 percent of the costs benefited the federal grant activities instead of the 100 percent originally reported to and reimbursed by the federal agency, resulting in excess draws of approximately $248,000, including approximately $30,000 for the year ending November 30, 2023. The approximate $30,000 includes approximately $16,000 of direct costs and approximately $14,000 of indirect using VAIA’s negotiated rate. VAIA notified the funding agency of this error and reimbursed the federal agency in February 2024. The amount reported on the accompanying Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards for the year ended November 30, 2023 does not include any of these unallowable charges. Cause and Effect – VAIA’s training of investigators and their delegates regarding expense monitoring, allocation of costs benefitting multiple projects using reasonable methodologies, and the timely correction of allocation errors was inadequate and resulted in VAIA drawing down funds to which they were not entitled. Recommendation – We recommend that VAIA review its procedures and controls to ensure that principal investigators over grants funds are properly trained and knowledgeable regarding allocation of expenditures between programs. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan - VAIA requires laboratory personnel to review and approve monthly Vivarium transactions by protocol, since investigators and their delegates are the only individuals at VAIA in a position to know with certainty how Vivarium costs proportionately benefit multiple funding sources. Following VAIA’s customary review and approval process, VAIA’s internal controls subsequently identified an improperly calculated allocation. Taking swift action, the allocation was corrected, and funds were returned to the Federal Government within 90 days of identifying improper allocation as required by NIH Grants Policy Statement section 7.5. VAIA management disclosed this correction to our external auditors and the award’s Grant Management Officer. VAI’s corrective action plan for Vivarium charges includes the following: - Deploying an automated front-end solution that requires a protocol review and approval by our IACUC office before a protocol is made available for use by individual sponsored projects. - Evaluating additional opportunities to utilize technology to enhance the control environment, particularly with respect to cost allocation of vivarium charges, - Ensuring proper allocation through three meetings per laboratory in 2024 to review Vivarium costs charged to federally sponsored projects. - Providing additional continuing education on cost allocation principles for those making allocation determinations
Finding No. 2023-003: Internal Control over Payroll – Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID Foreign Assistant for Programs Overseas, Assistance Listing Number 98.001. Criteria Section 200.405 of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) indicates that a cost is allocable to a particular federal award 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, among other things, if the cost charged is incurred specifically for the federal award. Also, under cost principles established by 2 CFR Section 200.430, charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable and properly allocated and be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity. Context During our testing of payroll expenditures, we noted an instance for one employee where the time worked on the award did not have support to document that the payroll expenditure was properly approved and an instance where a bonus was awarded to an employee, where the allocation for time worked on the federal award for the specific pay period was used as the allocable base for the overall bonus instead of the period to which the bonus was related. The total amount recorded to the grant related to this was $2,563. Cause There was a breakdown in internal control where one employee’s timesheet was not reviewed by their supervisor. Also, when reviewing the allocable charges to the federal award, there was a breakdown in internal control when preparing the allocation for the pro-rated salary charges incurred related to the federal award. Effect The amount charged to the federal award was not properly authorized. If the compensation costs allocated to the grant cannot be supported in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the granting agency could determine that these costs are not allowable. Questioned Costs The amount did not exceed $25,000 and therefore is not required to be reported. Recommendation The Organization’s program staff and management should ensure that the amounts charged to the federal award are properly approved and accurate. Monthly reconciliation of all expenses, including of salaries charged to program versus actual hours incurred should be performed timely. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions See Corrective Action Plan
Section III – Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs Finding 2023-002: Overdrawn Federal Funding Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Costs Principles and Cash Management Type: Material Noncompliance and Material Weakness over Internal Control Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services AL Numbers and Titles: 93.809 – National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Federal Award Number: NU58DP006510 Questioned Costs: $380,644 Repeat Finding: No Criteria: NACDD requests funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the advance payment method. In accordance with 45 CFR 74.22, cash advances to a recipient organization shall be limited to the minimum amounts needed and be timed to be in accordance with the actual, immediate cash requirements of the recipient organization in carrying out the purpose of the approved program or project. The timing and amount of cash advances shall be as close as is administratively feasible to the actual disbursements by the recipient organization for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of any allowable indirect costs. According to 2 CFR §200.403 - §200.405 (Allowable Costs/Cost Principles), costs must be necessary, reasonable, and allocable to the federal award. Additionally, Section 200.303 of the Uniform Guidance indicates that the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. The Uniform Guidance also indicates that these internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (Green Book) issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework,” issued by COSO. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has clarified that the references to the Green Book and COSO were only provided as best practices and not requirements. Condition: During our testing, we identified duplicated federal award expenditures amounting to $380,644, resulting in overdrawn federal funds by $380,644. The excess cash on hand was not returned to the funding source in a timely manner. Cause: This issue occurred due to inadequate controls over the recording of expenses and the drawdown of federal funds. 28 ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL CHRONIC DISEASE PROGRAM DIRECTORS D/B/A THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHRONIC DISEASE DIRECTORS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS - Continued Section III – Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs – continued Finding 2023-002: Overdrawn Federal Funding - continued Effect: NACDD is not in compliance with federal regulations concerning allowable costs, disbursement of federal funds and excess cash. In addition, a lack of adequate controls over allowable costs and cash management could result in a reasonable possibility that NACDD would not detect errors in the normal course of performing duties and correct them in a timely manner. Recommendation: We recommend that management conduct regular reconciliations of grant expenses to identify and correct duplicate entries promptly and review cash management practices to prevent overdraws on federal funds. Views of Responsible Officials Corrective Actions: Management agrees with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Finding No. 2023-003: Internal Control over Payroll – Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance U.S. Agency for International Development, USAID Foreign Assistant for Programs Overseas, Assistance Listing Number 98.001. Criteria Section 200.405 of the Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) indicates that a cost is allocable to a particular federal award 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, among other things, if the cost charged is incurred specifically for the federal award. Also, under cost principles established by 2 CFR Section 200.430, charges to federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must be supported by a system of internal control which provides reasonable assurance that the charges are accurate, allowable and properly allocated and be incorporated into the official records of the non-Federal entity. Context During our testing of payroll expenditures, we noted an instance for one employee where the time worked on the award did not have support to document that the payroll expenditure was properly approved and an instance where a bonus was awarded to an employee, where the allocation for time worked on the federal award for the specific pay period was used as the allocable base for the overall bonus instead of the period to which the bonus was related. The total amount recorded to the grant related to this was $2,563. Cause There was a breakdown in internal control where one employee’s timesheet was not reviewed by their supervisor. Also, when reviewing the allocable charges to the federal award, there was a breakdown in internal control when preparing the allocation for the pro-rated salary charges incurred related to the federal award. Effect The amount charged to the federal award was not properly authorized. If the compensation costs allocated to the grant cannot be supported in accordance with the Uniform Guidance, the granting agency could determine that these costs are not allowable. Questioned Costs The amount did not exceed $25,000 and therefore is not required to be reported. Recommendation The Organization’s program staff and management should ensure that the amounts charged to the federal award are properly approved and accurate. Monthly reconciliation of all expenses, including of salaries charged to program versus actual hours incurred should be performed timely. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions See Corrective Action Plan
Section III – Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs Finding 2023-002: Overdrawn Federal Funding Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Costs Principles and Cash Management Type: Material Noncompliance and Material Weakness over Internal Control Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services AL Numbers and Titles: 93.809 – National Center for Chronic Disease Prevention and Health Promotion Federal Award Number: NU58DP006510 Questioned Costs: $380,644 Repeat Finding: No Criteria: NACDD requests funds from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services under the advance payment method. In accordance with 45 CFR 74.22, cash advances to a recipient organization shall be limited to the minimum amounts needed and be timed to be in accordance with the actual, immediate cash requirements of the recipient organization in carrying out the purpose of the approved program or project. The timing and amount of cash advances shall be as close as is administratively feasible to the actual disbursements by the recipient organization for direct program or project costs and the proportionate share of any allowable indirect costs. According to 2 CFR §200.403 - §200.405 (Allowable Costs/Cost Principles), costs must be necessary, reasonable, and allocable to the federal award. Additionally, Section 200.303 of the Uniform Guidance indicates that the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. The Uniform Guidance also indicates that these internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in “Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government” (Green Book) issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the “Internal Control Integrated Framework,” issued by COSO. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) has clarified that the references to the Green Book and COSO were only provided as best practices and not requirements. Condition: During our testing, we identified duplicated federal award expenditures amounting to $380,644, resulting in overdrawn federal funds by $380,644. The excess cash on hand was not returned to the funding source in a timely manner. Cause: This issue occurred due to inadequate controls over the recording of expenses and the drawdown of federal funds. 28 ASSOCIATION OF STATE AND TERRITORIAL CHRONIC DISEASE PROGRAM DIRECTORS D/B/A THE NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CHRONIC DISEASE DIRECTORS SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS - Continued Section III – Federal Award Findings and Questioned Costs – continued Finding 2023-002: Overdrawn Federal Funding - continued Effect: NACDD is not in compliance with federal regulations concerning allowable costs, disbursement of federal funds and excess cash. In addition, a lack of adequate controls over allowable costs and cash management could result in a reasonable possibility that NACDD would not detect errors in the normal course of performing duties and correct them in a timely manner. Recommendation: We recommend that management conduct regular reconciliations of grant expenses to identify and correct duplicate entries promptly and review cash management practices to prevent overdraws on federal funds. Views of Responsible Officials Corrective Actions: Management agrees with this finding. Please refer to the Corrective Action Plan.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
Federal Programs Affected: • 11.302 – Economic Development Administration (EDA) • 93.041 – Preventive Health and Health Services – Ombudsman • 93.043 – Prevention and Public Health – Evidence-Based Health Promotion (Title III-D) • 93.071 – Medicare Enrollment Assistance (MIPPA) • 93.324 – State Primary Care Offices (HICAP) • 93.499 – ACA – LIHWAP Cluster • 93.791 – Money Follows the Person – ADRC • 93.917 – HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White Service Delivery • 97.067 – Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP Compliance Requirement: Allowable Costs/Cost Principles (2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E) Type of Finding: Compliance and Internal Control Deficiency Condition: During our review of administrative expenditures, we identified a utility payment to NRG Business that included sales tax, which is unallowable under federal cost principles for tax-exempt entities. Specifically, the utility invoice dated June 30, 2023, in the amount of $713.43 included $51.47 in sales tax. Although the vendor later issued a credit for the sales tax amount, the original charge—including the unallowable portion—was allocated to various federal grants through the administrative cost pool. It is not clear whether the vendor credit was properly reallocated to reverse the original federal charges. The table below summarizes the impacted programs and amounts: Federal Program ALN Check No. Amount Charged Economic Development Administration 11.302 #70335 $66.99 Preventive Health & Health Services – Ombudsman 93.041 #70076 $56.16 Evidence-Based Health – Title III-D 93.043 #70335 $66.99 Medicare Enrollment Assistance – MIPPA 93.071 #70583 $75.50 State Primary Care Offices – HICAP 93.324 #71046 $80.00 ACA – LIHWAP Cluster 93.499 #69835 $43.14 Money Follows the Person – ADRC 93.791 #70335 $66.99 HIV Care Formula Grants – Ryan White 93.917 #70460 $35.63 Homeland Security Grant Program – SHSP 97.067 #69835 $43.14 Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR §200.403 and §200.405, costs charged to federal awards must be necessary, reasonable, allocable, and allowable under the cost principles. As a tax-exempt entity, sales taxes paid in error are considered unallowable unless excluded from reimbursement or properly credited. Additionally, per §200.302(b)(2), recipients must maintain effective control over and accountability for all funds and ensure proper allocation of costs. Cause: STDC’s internal controls did not identify the inclusion of sales tax in the vendor invoice prior to payment. Furthermore, no mechanism was in place to ensure that vendor credits—once received—were retroactively applied to reverse the original allocations made to federal grants. Effect: Although the vendor issued a credit for the unallowable sales tax, the original amount was temporarily charged to multiple federal programs. The lack of documented reallocation creates a risk that federal programs may have absorbed unallowable costs or that cost allocations remain inaccurate. Recommendation: We recommend that STDC: • Strengthen internal controls to ensure that invoices are reviewed for unallowable costs (such as sales tax) prior to payment and allocation; • Establish procedures to track vendor credits and ensure that corresponding cost reallocations are applied to the correct funding sources; • Enhance documentation and reconciliation processes to demonstrate that post-payment adjustments are handled properly; • Train fiscal and grant staff on exempt status implications and cost allowability under Uniform Guidance. Questioned Costs: None (vendor credit issued); however, audit adjustments or reallocations may be necessary to ensure grant charges are corrected.
MATERIAL WEAKNESS IN INTERNAL CONTROL OVER COMPLIANCE AND MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE – U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, PASSED THROUGH MINNESOTA DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, SPECIAL EDUCATION CLUSTER (INCLUDING COVID-19 FUNDING) – FEDERAL ALN 84.027 AND 84.173 2023-002 Internal Control Over Compliance and Material Noncompliance With Federal Allowable Costs Requirements Criteria – 2 CFR § 200.405 specifies a cost is allocable to a particular federal award if the goods or services involved are chargeable or assignable to that federal award in accordance with relative benefits received. This standard is met if the cost is incurred specifically for the award, can be distributed in proportions that may be approximated using reasonable methods, and is necessary to the overall operation of the District and is assignable in part to the federal award in accordance with the principles in 2 CFR 200 Subpart E – Cost Principles. Condition – During our audit, we noted that the District did not have adequate internal controls in place to ensure all salary costs charged to the federal special education cluster programs met the standard for an allowable or allocable cost as defined by the U.S. Office of Management and Budget’s Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance) allowable costs standards, which resulted in a reportable instance of noncompliance. Questioned Costs – $250,383. Context – For four of four employees tested, the District had charged portions of the individuals’ salaries to the program, but did not have sufficient time and effort documentation to support the amount of cost allocated to the programs. This was not a statistically valid sample. Repeat Finding – This is a current year finding. Cause – This was an oversight by district personnel. Effect – This is a potential violation of the award agreement. Recommendation – We recommend that the District review its internal control procedures relating to allowable costs for its federal special education cluster programs. View of Responsible Official and Planned Corrective Actions – The District agrees with the finding. The District will review and update its policies and procedures relating to allowable costs for its federal programs to ensure compliance with the Uniform Guidance in the future. The District has separately issued a Corrective Action Plan related to this finding.