Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria: 2 CFR 200.431 includes the standards for documentation of fringe benefits. According to 2 CFR 200.431(c), the cost of fringe benefits are allowable, provided such benefits are granted under established written policies. Such benefits should be charged as direct or indirect costs in accordance with the non-Federal entity’s accounting practices. Additionally, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Grants Policy Statement section 7.5, Cost Transfers, Overruns, Accelerated and Delayed Expenditures, states that cost transfers to NIH grants that represent corrections of clerical or bookkeeping errors should be accomplished within 90 days of when the error was discovered. The transfers must be supported by documentation that fully explains how the error occurred and a certification of the correctness of the new charge by a responsible organizational official. Documentation must be maintained of cost transfers, pursuant to 2 CFR Part 200.337 and 45 CFR Part 75.364. The recipient should have systems in place to detect such errors within a reasonable time frame; untimely discovery of errors could be an indication of poor internal controls. Frequent errors in recording costs may indicate the need for accounting system improvements, enhanced internal controls, or both. If such errors occur, recipients are encouraged to evaluate the need for improvements and to make whatever improvements are deemed necessary to prevent reoccurrence. Lastly, 2 CFR 200.303 requires nonfederal entities to, among other things, establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Conditions Found: We noted several conditions that existed due to cost transfers that occurred during the fiscal year. While performing procedures related to cost transfers, we noted the University had not followed their ‘Cost Transfer Policy’ which states “Cost transfers for current transactions must occur on a timely basis”. The University’s cost transfer policy defines timely as “occurring no later than two accounting periods after the month end of the date of the original transaction (no later than 90 days total)”. The University did not have an effective system of internal control in place to timely discover errors and get them corrected as we noted seventy-five of our one hundred nineteen transactions sampled cost transfers (totaling $246,869 positive and $66,004 negative) where the cost transfer date was between 91 and 1,002 days past the date the original expenditure was incurred (30 were between 91 and 180 days past, 15 were between 181 and 270 days past, and 30 were greater than 271 days past). While testing cost transfers and adjustments, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that did not have supporting documentation resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: Additionally, we noted a transaction recorded to a grant that was recorded outside of the period of performance resulting in the costs being unallowable to the grant: During the fiscal year, positive cost transfers were approximately $2,815,865 and negative cost transfers were $1,792,678 during fiscal year 2023. While performing procedures related to fringe benefits, we noted one of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where transactions were originally recorded to an incorrect worktag. Management identified the error and a cost transfer was performed to move the fringe benefits to a federal research and development grant. However, the incorrect fringe rate was utilized as the University’s non-sponsored research fringe rate utilized in the original entry is a higher fringe rate than the federally approved fringe rate which resulted in an overcharge to the research and development grant during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for a total overstatement of $26 as noted below: Additionally, we noted fringe benefits were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of twenty-five sampled grants (totaling $461,382) where the labor transaction originated in previous fiscal years. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the fringe benefit charges for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total fringe benefits charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,134 as noted below: Total fringe benefits during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $2,673,231.While performing procedures related to indirect costs, we noted indirect costs were expensed during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023 for two of forty sampled grants (totaling $1,817,264) where indirect costs were originally undercharged during the previous fiscal year. The University booked an adjustment within Workday to correct the indirect costs for the life of the grant. This resulted in the SEFA being overstated during the University’s fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. We noted the total indirect costs charged for the life of the grants was allowable and within the period of performance. These overstatements to the SEFA for the University’s fiscal year 2023 was for a total of $3,677 as noted below: Total indirect costs during fiscal year 2023 totaled approximately $10,484,419. Questioned Cost: Known questioned costs of $26. Cause and Effect: In discussing these conditions with University management, they stated that during fiscal year 2023, they continued reconciliation procedures related to ‘grant level’ activity as a result of implementing the grants module of Workday during fiscal year 2021. Grant level activity allows them to track the specific budget provided by the individual grant as well as monitor other key compliance requirement aspects. The University continued to process an increased volume of cost transfers and experienced delays in posting necessary cost transfers for identified unallowable costs stemming from the reconciliation efforts. Repeat Finding: A similar finding was reported in prior year audit as finding number 2022-001. Statistical Sampling: The sample was not intended to be, and was not, a statistically valid sample. Recommendations: We recommend the University continue its corrective action plan and adjust internal controls as needed to prevent and detect noncompliance with and improve adherence to federal regulations.View of Responsible Official: The University concurs with the finding. As noted in our prior year response, the University continued to have cost transfers in fiscal year 2023 as it reconciled its grants. To limit cost transfers in the future, the following steps have been taken by the University: Additionally, the University is exploring additional functionality within our Workday grants management module to build in additional approvals, specifically for labor, on expense before the expenses are charged to the grant to reduce future cost transfers. In regards to the three transactions noted above (federal award number HHSN272201300021I; federal award number 5R21AG065526-02; and federal award number UH3HD096929), the erroneous charges have been refunded to the federal agency. As part of the University’s corrective action plan, during fiscal year 2023 the sponsored programs accounting team recalculated fringe and indirect costs on all federal grants to ensure the correct expense was recorded to each grant. During this reconciliation process cumulative award to date errors were identified and corrected in fiscal year 2023. The sponsored program accounting team continues to reconcile fringe and indirect costs on cost transfers at the grant level on a periodic basis to ensure accuracy.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.
Criteria or specific requirement: According to § 200.302 Financial management of 2 CFR Part 200, the financial management system of each nonfederal entity must provide for written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of this part and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.303 Internal controls of 2 CFR Part 200, the nonfederal entity must establish and maintain effective internal control over the federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the nonfederal entity is managing the federal award in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. According to § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs of 2 CFR Part 200, except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the nonfederal entity in order to be allowable under federal awards. According to § 200.430 Compensation—personal services of 2 CFR Part 200, costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1) Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the established written policy of the nonfederal entity consistently applied to both federal and nonfederal activities; (2) Follows an appointment made in accordance with a nonfederal entity's laws and/or rules or written policies and meets the requirements of federal statute, where applicable; and (3) Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, when applicable. According to § 200.431 Compensation-fringe benefits of 2 CFR Part 200, except as provided elsewhere in these principles, the costs of fringe benefits are allowable provided that the benefits are reasonable and are required by law, nonfederal entity-employee agreement, or an established policy of the nonfederal entity. Condition: The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs nor an established written policy for compensation-personal services and fringe benefits. Questioned costs: None Context: During our testing, we noted the County charged various types of salaries and benefits to the grants. The County does not have written procedures for determining the allowability of costs. Specific to compensation-personal services and fringe benefits, there is not an established written policy for us to test that personnel costs charged to grants conform to, follows an appointment in accordance with, and are required by an established policy of the County. Cause: Management oversight. Effect: The auditor noted instances of noncompliance. Noncompliance results in potential unallowable costs charged to grants. Repeat Finding: This audit finding was reported in the prior year in finding 2022-002. Recommendation: We recommend the County establish written procedures for determining the allowability of costs to include a written policy regarding the charging of personnel costs to grants. Views of responsible officials: There is no disagreement from responsible officials.