Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
Internal Controls over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency) Federal Award Program: All Awards Criteria: 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context: Audit procedures noted several errors in the client provided SEFA. Cause: Insufficient training and internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect: The following errors were noted and corrected as a result of auditing procedures on the SEFA: • The Intermediary Relending Program and Rural Microentrepreneur Assistance Relending Program awards loan expenditures were calculated incorrectly by including the repayments and excluding the loan service income. • The CFDA #11.037 and #11.419 were not grouped with the correct Federal Grantor. • The STEM Education award had 2 CFDA #’s provided on one line. • There were multiple Federal Grantor and Program Titles that were mislabeled. Questioned Costs: None Recommendation: Management should seek appropriate training for the fiscal department on preparation of the SEFA standards. In addition, review processes over the SEFA should be strengthened. Management should consider contracting with an experienced accounting consultant should they identify areas that require additional expertise and review after the drafting of the SEFA and prior to the submission for audit. Management should also ensure that they obtain the complete and full agreements from grantors that are signed by all parties and that clearly identify the funding source. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Management attempted to contract with multiple accounting consultants for creating the SEFA but they were already at full capacity and were not available to assist with the creation of the report. When the relevant contract or grant award did not include the necessary information, SCEC management and program staff reached out to our contracting agencies to confirm whether federal funds were part of each award and to find out CFDA numbers and other contract information necessary to complete the form. Nevertheless, there were several errors that in the SEFA submitted to our auditors for review. For the two IRP and RMAP lending programs, the prior year balances were carried over into the FY 24 SEFA through a clerical error. The errors in item 11.037 and 11.419 are related to information we received from the contracting agency. In particular, 11.037 was listed under US Economic Development Administration according to the contracting agency and we were given the description of Economic Adjustment Assistance. The description for 11.419 was given to SCEC by the contracting agency as CDS – Congressionally Directed Spending. Finally, we provided two CFDA’s for the STEM Education award with the submission of the SEFA as we were waiting for confirmation from Program Managers about the correct CDFA numbers. The auditors were informed that we were waiting for these numbers when the SEFA was submitted. In FY24, SCEC had 29 different federal funding sources, from 14 different agencies. We are working to improve our capacity to report these awards without error before the review of our auditors.
2024-003 Internal Control over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency – All Awards), Repeated Criteria – 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principals, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context – Low-Income Home Energy Assistance expenditures were understated by $54,831 as federal LIAP and Assurance 16 funds were not included on the prepared SEFA. Cause – Insufficient internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect – Errors on reporting can lead to issues in reconciling and tracking of awards earned and recognized in the financial statements. They could also lead to findings and corrective action with funders. Questioned Costs – None Recommendations – The Organization should strengthen its review process to ensure that federal award program revenue reported in the statement of activities reconciles to the amounts reported on the SEFA. As part of this review, all required minimum elements should be traced to original source documentation, including award letters, grant reports, and trial balance profit and loss reports. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions – The Finance Director has initiated a training process to ensure that all fiscal team members are equipped to review contracts, grants, and Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs). This includes verifying that all applicable Assistance Listing Numbers (ALNs) are properly identified and that related revenue is accurately tracked within the accounting system. Additionally, a new revenue code has been established to separately track Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funds from other federal revenues. This ensures accurate reporting and proper classification of federal awards on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA).
2024-003 Internal Control over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency – All Awards), Repeated Criteria – 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principals, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context – Low-Income Home Energy Assistance expenditures were understated by $54,831 as federal LIAP and Assurance 16 funds were not included on the prepared SEFA. Cause – Insufficient internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect – Errors on reporting can lead to issues in reconciling and tracking of awards earned and recognized in the financial statements. They could also lead to findings and corrective action with funders. Questioned Costs – None Recommendations – The Organization should strengthen its review process to ensure that federal award program revenue reported in the statement of activities reconciles to the amounts reported on the SEFA. As part of this review, all required minimum elements should be traced to original source documentation, including award letters, grant reports, and trial balance profit and loss reports. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions – The Finance Director has initiated a training process to ensure that all fiscal team members are equipped to review contracts, grants, and Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs). This includes verifying that all applicable Assistance Listing Numbers (ALNs) are properly identified and that related revenue is accurately tracked within the accounting system. Additionally, a new revenue code has been established to separately track Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funds from other federal revenues. This ensures accurate reporting and proper classification of federal awards on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA).
2024-003 Internal Control over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency – All Awards), Repeated Criteria – 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principals, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context – Low-Income Home Energy Assistance expenditures were understated by $54,831 as federal LIAP and Assurance 16 funds were not included on the prepared SEFA. Cause – Insufficient internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect – Errors on reporting can lead to issues in reconciling and tracking of awards earned and recognized in the financial statements. They could also lead to findings and corrective action with funders. Questioned Costs – None Recommendations – The Organization should strengthen its review process to ensure that federal award program revenue reported in the statement of activities reconciles to the amounts reported on the SEFA. As part of this review, all required minimum elements should be traced to original source documentation, including award letters, grant reports, and trial balance profit and loss reports. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions – The Finance Director has initiated a training process to ensure that all fiscal team members are equipped to review contracts, grants, and Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs). This includes verifying that all applicable Assistance Listing Numbers (ALNs) are properly identified and that related revenue is accurately tracked within the accounting system. Additionally, a new revenue code has been established to separately track Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funds from other federal revenues. This ensures accurate reporting and proper classification of federal awards on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA).
2024-003 Internal Control over Preparation of the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (Significant Deficiency – All Awards), Repeated Criteria – 2 CFR 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principals, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, £200.508(b) The auditee must prepare appropriate statements including an accurate Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) in accordance with £200.510, Financial Statements. Condition and Context – Low-Income Home Energy Assistance expenditures were understated by $54,831 as federal LIAP and Assurance 16 funds were not included on the prepared SEFA. Cause – Insufficient internal controls over the preparation and review process for the SEFA. Effect – Errors on reporting can lead to issues in reconciling and tracking of awards earned and recognized in the financial statements. They could also lead to findings and corrective action with funders. Questioned Costs – None Recommendations – The Organization should strengthen its review process to ensure that federal award program revenue reported in the statement of activities reconciles to the amounts reported on the SEFA. As part of this review, all required minimum elements should be traced to original source documentation, including award letters, grant reports, and trial balance profit and loss reports. Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions – The Finance Director has initiated a training process to ensure that all fiscal team members are equipped to review contracts, grants, and Memorandum of Understanding (MOUs). This includes verifying that all applicable Assistance Listing Numbers (ALNs) are properly identified and that related revenue is accurately tracked within the accounting system. Additionally, a new revenue code has been established to separately track Low-Income Home Energy Assistance Program (LIHEAP) funds from other federal revenues. This ensures accurate reporting and proper classification of federal awards on the Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA).
Finding 2024-003: SEFA Preparation— Subrecipient vs. Subcontractor Determinations Federal Program(s): • Adv HIV & AIDS Epidemic Control (AHEC) Activity - ALN 98.U01 • ASAP & ASAP II – ALN 98.U02 • Zambia Local – ALN 98.U03 Criteria: The auditee must prepare the financial statements, including the schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA) in accordance with 2 CFR 200.510 (2 CFR 200.508 (b)). The SEFA must include the total amount provided to subrecipients from each Federal program (2 CFR 200.510 (b)(4)). Condition: Subcontractor amounts were improperly included in the Amounts Provided to Subrecipients column on the SEFA. Cause: Ineffective design and implementation of internal controls around SEFA preparation. Effect: There were approximately $2.6 million in subcontractor expenses incurred by IntraHealth that were improperly included in the Amounts to Subrecipients column on the SEFA as they did not represent payments to subrecipients. Questioned costs: None Context: Management made improper subrecipient vs. subcontractor determinations, resulting in inaccurate SEFA preparation. This resulted in $2.6 million being removed from the Amounts Provided to Subrecipients column in the original SEFA provided to the auditors by management. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that management review internal controls in place around the SEFA preparation and ensure an independent review is being performed around amounts reported as Amounts to Subrecipients against 2 CFR 200.331, Subrecipient and subcontractor determinations. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding. See corrective action plan.
Finding 2024-003: SEFA Preparation— Subrecipient vs. Subcontractor Determinations Federal Program(s): • Adv HIV & AIDS Epidemic Control (AHEC) Activity - ALN 98.U01 • ASAP & ASAP II – ALN 98.U02 • Zambia Local – ALN 98.U03 Criteria: The auditee must prepare the financial statements, including the schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA) in accordance with 2 CFR 200.510 (2 CFR 200.508 (b)). The SEFA must include the total amount provided to subrecipients from each Federal program (2 CFR 200.510 (b)(4)). Condition: Subcontractor amounts were improperly included in the Amounts Provided to Subrecipients column on the SEFA. Cause: Ineffective design and implementation of internal controls around SEFA preparation. Effect: There were approximately $2.6 million in subcontractor expenses incurred by IntraHealth that were improperly included in the Amounts to Subrecipients column on the SEFA as they did not represent payments to subrecipients. Questioned costs: None Context: Management made improper subrecipient vs. subcontractor determinations, resulting in inaccurate SEFA preparation. This resulted in $2.6 million being removed from the Amounts Provided to Subrecipients column in the original SEFA provided to the auditors by management. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that management review internal controls in place around the SEFA preparation and ensure an independent review is being performed around amounts reported as Amounts to Subrecipients against 2 CFR 200.331, Subrecipient and subcontractor determinations. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding. See corrective action plan.
Finding 2024-003: SEFA Preparation— Subrecipient vs. Subcontractor Determinations Federal Program(s): • Adv HIV & AIDS Epidemic Control (AHEC) Activity - ALN 98.U01 • ASAP & ASAP II – ALN 98.U02 • Zambia Local – ALN 98.U03 Criteria: The auditee must prepare the financial statements, including the schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA) in accordance with 2 CFR 200.510 (2 CFR 200.508 (b)). The SEFA must include the total amount provided to subrecipients from each Federal program (2 CFR 200.510 (b)(4)). Condition: Subcontractor amounts were improperly included in the Amounts Provided to Subrecipients column on the SEFA. Cause: Ineffective design and implementation of internal controls around SEFA preparation. Effect: There were approximately $2.6 million in subcontractor expenses incurred by IntraHealth that were improperly included in the Amounts to Subrecipients column on the SEFA as they did not represent payments to subrecipients. Questioned costs: None Context: Management made improper subrecipient vs. subcontractor determinations, resulting in inaccurate SEFA preparation. This resulted in $2.6 million being removed from the Amounts Provided to Subrecipients column in the original SEFA provided to the auditors by management. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that management review internal controls in place around the SEFA preparation and ensure an independent review is being performed around amounts reported as Amounts to Subrecipients against 2 CFR 200.331, Subrecipient and subcontractor determinations. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding. See corrective action plan.
Finding 2024-003: SEFA Preparation— Subrecipient vs. Subcontractor Determinations Federal Program(s): • Adv HIV & AIDS Epidemic Control (AHEC) Activity - ALN 98.U01 • ASAP & ASAP II – ALN 98.U02 • Zambia Local – ALN 98.U03 Criteria: The auditee must prepare the financial statements, including the schedule of expenditures of federal awards (SEFA) in accordance with 2 CFR 200.510 (2 CFR 200.508 (b)). The SEFA must include the total amount provided to subrecipients from each Federal program (2 CFR 200.510 (b)(4)). Condition: Subcontractor amounts were improperly included in the Amounts Provided to Subrecipients column on the SEFA. Cause: Ineffective design and implementation of internal controls around SEFA preparation. Effect: There were approximately $2.6 million in subcontractor expenses incurred by IntraHealth that were improperly included in the Amounts to Subrecipients column on the SEFA as they did not represent payments to subrecipients. Questioned costs: None Context: Management made improper subrecipient vs. subcontractor determinations, resulting in inaccurate SEFA preparation. This resulted in $2.6 million being removed from the Amounts Provided to Subrecipients column in the original SEFA provided to the auditors by management. Repeat finding: No Recommendation: We recommend that management review internal controls in place around the SEFA preparation and ensure an independent review is being performed around amounts reported as Amounts to Subrecipients against 2 CFR 200.331, Subrecipient and subcontractor determinations. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding. See corrective action plan.
Finding Reference Number 2024-001 Qualified Auditor’s Opinion for Allowable Costs and Activities Allowed and Unallowed and Special Tests and Provisions for Research & Development Cluster Due to Material Scope Limitations Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.508 (d), the auditee must provide the auditor access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and any other information needed for the auditor to perform the audit required for the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Condition/Context: During our testing of allowable costs and special tests and provisions, access to classified contracts was restricted. Therefore, we were unable to attain contracts that are deemed to be classified. Consequently, the audit evidence was insufficient to support whether the Company has incurred expenses that are allowable in pursuant with the terms and conditions of federal awards. Further, there was no accessibility to the classified federal award contracts for the determination of whether other special tests and provisions are applicable to these classified contracts. Under the testing for allowable costs, there were approximately 10% of expenses related to classified contracts within the total population. Further, the total classified contract expense amount is nearly two times program materiality. For special tests and provisions, we were unable to attain classified contracts to examine the required level of security clearance for personnel assigned to the projects. Out of the total of 637 federal awards, the Company identified 96 contracts with the requirement of security clearance. Of these 96 contracts, 35 contracts (approximately 36%) were classified. Aside from the requirement for security clearance, we were unable to review other special provisions applicable to classified contracts given restricted access to classified contracts. Cause: The Company acknowledges that classified contracts are subject to confidentiality requirements as mandated by external regulators. Access to classified information within these contracts are strictly limited to authorized auditors who have been granted clearance by relevant regulatory authorities. Effect: Audit conclusion cannot be reached for the Company’s compliance with allowable costs and special tests and provisions. Questioned Cost: Unknown Recommendation: The Company is advised to engage with the external regulators to seek clarification on the scope limitation and explore any possible flexibility or alternative approaches. Views of responsible officials: See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding Reference Number 2024-001 Qualified Auditor’s Opinion for Allowable Costs and Activities Allowed and Unallowed and Special Tests and Provisions for Research & Development Cluster Due to Material Scope Limitations Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.508 (d), the auditee must provide the auditor access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and any other information needed for the auditor to perform the audit required for the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Condition/Context: During our testing of allowable costs and special tests and provisions, access to classified contracts was restricted. Therefore, we were unable to attain contracts that are deemed to be classified. Consequently, the audit evidence was insufficient to support whether the Company has incurred expenses that are allowable in pursuant with the terms and conditions of federal awards. Further, there was no accessibility to the classified federal award contracts for the determination of whether other special tests and provisions are applicable to these classified contracts. Under the testing for allowable costs, there were approximately 10% of expenses related to classified contracts within the total population. Further, the total classified contract expense amount is nearly two times program materiality. For special tests and provisions, we were unable to attain classified contracts to examine the required level of security clearance for personnel assigned to the projects. Out of the total of 637 federal awards, the Company identified 96 contracts with the requirement of security clearance. Of these 96 contracts, 35 contracts (approximately 36%) were classified. Aside from the requirement for security clearance, we were unable to review other special provisions applicable to classified contracts given restricted access to classified contracts. Cause: The Company acknowledges that classified contracts are subject to confidentiality requirements as mandated by external regulators. Access to classified information within these contracts are strictly limited to authorized auditors who have been granted clearance by relevant regulatory authorities. Effect: Audit conclusion cannot be reached for the Company’s compliance with allowable costs and special tests and provisions. Questioned Cost: Unknown Recommendation: The Company is advised to engage with the external regulators to seek clarification on the scope limitation and explore any possible flexibility or alternative approaches. Views of responsible officials: See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding Reference Number 2024-001 Qualified Auditor’s Opinion for Allowable Costs and Activities Allowed and Unallowed and Special Tests and Provisions for Research & Development Cluster Due to Material Scope Limitations Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.508 (d), the auditee must provide the auditor access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and any other information needed for the auditor to perform the audit required for the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Condition/Context: During our testing of allowable costs and special tests and provisions, access to classified contracts was restricted. Therefore, we were unable to attain contracts that are deemed to be classified. Consequently, the audit evidence was insufficient to support whether the Company has incurred expenses that are allowable in pursuant with the terms and conditions of federal awards. Further, there was no accessibility to the classified federal award contracts for the determination of whether other special tests and provisions are applicable to these classified contracts. Under the testing for allowable costs, there were approximately 10% of expenses related to classified contracts within the total population. Further, the total classified contract expense amount is nearly two times program materiality. For special tests and provisions, we were unable to attain classified contracts to examine the required level of security clearance for personnel assigned to the projects. Out of the total of 637 federal awards, the Company identified 96 contracts with the requirement of security clearance. Of these 96 contracts, 35 contracts (approximately 36%) were classified. Aside from the requirement for security clearance, we were unable to review other special provisions applicable to classified contracts given restricted access to classified contracts. Cause: The Company acknowledges that classified contracts are subject to confidentiality requirements as mandated by external regulators. Access to classified information within these contracts are strictly limited to authorized auditors who have been granted clearance by relevant regulatory authorities. Effect: Audit conclusion cannot be reached for the Company’s compliance with allowable costs and special tests and provisions. Questioned Cost: Unknown Recommendation: The Company is advised to engage with the external regulators to seek clarification on the scope limitation and explore any possible flexibility or alternative approaches. Views of responsible officials: See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding Reference Number 2024-001 Qualified Auditor’s Opinion for Allowable Costs and Activities Allowed and Unallowed and Special Tests and Provisions for Research & Development Cluster Due to Material Scope Limitations Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.508 (d), the auditee must provide the auditor access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and any other information needed for the auditor to perform the audit required for the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Condition/Context: During our testing of allowable costs and special tests and provisions, access to classified contracts was restricted. Therefore, we were unable to attain contracts that are deemed to be classified. Consequently, the audit evidence was insufficient to support whether the Company has incurred expenses that are allowable in pursuant with the terms and conditions of federal awards. Further, there was no accessibility to the classified federal award contracts for the determination of whether other special tests and provisions are applicable to these classified contracts. Under the testing for allowable costs, there were approximately 10% of expenses related to classified contracts within the total population. Further, the total classified contract expense amount is nearly two times program materiality. For special tests and provisions, we were unable to attain classified contracts to examine the required level of security clearance for personnel assigned to the projects. Out of the total of 637 federal awards, the Company identified 96 contracts with the requirement of security clearance. Of these 96 contracts, 35 contracts (approximately 36%) were classified. Aside from the requirement for security clearance, we were unable to review other special provisions applicable to classified contracts given restricted access to classified contracts. Cause: The Company acknowledges that classified contracts are subject to confidentiality requirements as mandated by external regulators. Access to classified information within these contracts are strictly limited to authorized auditors who have been granted clearance by relevant regulatory authorities. Effect: Audit conclusion cannot be reached for the Company’s compliance with allowable costs and special tests and provisions. Questioned Cost: Unknown Recommendation: The Company is advised to engage with the external regulators to seek clarification on the scope limitation and explore any possible flexibility or alternative approaches. Views of responsible officials: See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding Reference Number 2024-001 Qualified Auditor’s Opinion for Allowable Costs and Activities Allowed and Unallowed and Special Tests and Provisions for Research & Development Cluster Due to Material Scope Limitations Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.508 (d), the auditee must provide the auditor access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and any other information needed for the auditor to perform the audit required for the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Condition/Context: During our testing of allowable costs and special tests and provisions, access to classified contracts was restricted. Therefore, we were unable to attain contracts that are deemed to be classified. Consequently, the audit evidence was insufficient to support whether the Company has incurred expenses that are allowable in pursuant with the terms and conditions of federal awards. Further, there was no accessibility to the classified federal award contracts for the determination of whether other special tests and provisions are applicable to these classified contracts. Under the testing for allowable costs, there were approximately 10% of expenses related to classified contracts within the total population. Further, the total classified contract expense amount is nearly two times program materiality. For special tests and provisions, we were unable to attain classified contracts to examine the required level of security clearance for personnel assigned to the projects. Out of the total of 637 federal awards, the Company identified 96 contracts with the requirement of security clearance. Of these 96 contracts, 35 contracts (approximately 36%) were classified. Aside from the requirement for security clearance, we were unable to review other special provisions applicable to classified contracts given restricted access to classified contracts. Cause: The Company acknowledges that classified contracts are subject to confidentiality requirements as mandated by external regulators. Access to classified information within these contracts are strictly limited to authorized auditors who have been granted clearance by relevant regulatory authorities. Effect: Audit conclusion cannot be reached for the Company’s compliance with allowable costs and special tests and provisions. Questioned Cost: Unknown Recommendation: The Company is advised to engage with the external regulators to seek clarification on the scope limitation and explore any possible flexibility or alternative approaches. Views of responsible officials: See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding Reference Number 2024-001 Qualified Auditor’s Opinion for Allowable Costs and Activities Allowed and Unallowed and Special Tests and Provisions for Research & Development Cluster Due to Material Scope Limitations Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.508 (d), the auditee must provide the auditor access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and any other information needed for the auditor to perform the audit required for the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Condition/Context: During our testing of allowable costs and special tests and provisions, access to classified contracts was restricted. Therefore, we were unable to attain contracts that are deemed to be classified. Consequently, the audit evidence was insufficient to support whether the Company has incurred expenses that are allowable in pursuant with the terms and conditions of federal awards. Further, there was no accessibility to the classified federal award contracts for the determination of whether other special tests and provisions are applicable to these classified contracts. Under the testing for allowable costs, there were approximately 10% of expenses related to classified contracts within the total population. Further, the total classified contract expense amount is nearly two times program materiality. For special tests and provisions, we were unable to attain classified contracts to examine the required level of security clearance for personnel assigned to the projects. Out of the total of 637 federal awards, the Company identified 96 contracts with the requirement of security clearance. Of these 96 contracts, 35 contracts (approximately 36%) were classified. Aside from the requirement for security clearance, we were unable to review other special provisions applicable to classified contracts given restricted access to classified contracts. Cause: The Company acknowledges that classified contracts are subject to confidentiality requirements as mandated by external regulators. Access to classified information within these contracts are strictly limited to authorized auditors who have been granted clearance by relevant regulatory authorities. Effect: Audit conclusion cannot be reached for the Company’s compliance with allowable costs and special tests and provisions. Questioned Cost: Unknown Recommendation: The Company is advised to engage with the external regulators to seek clarification on the scope limitation and explore any possible flexibility or alternative approaches. Views of responsible officials: See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding Reference Number 2024-001 Qualified Auditor’s Opinion for Allowable Costs and Activities Allowed and Unallowed and Special Tests and Provisions for Research & Development Cluster Due to Material Scope Limitations Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.508 (d), the auditee must provide the auditor access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and any other information needed for the auditor to perform the audit required for the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Condition/Context: During our testing of allowable costs and special tests and provisions, access to classified contracts was restricted. Therefore, we were unable to attain contracts that are deemed to be classified. Consequently, the audit evidence was insufficient to support whether the Company has incurred expenses that are allowable in pursuant with the terms and conditions of federal awards. Further, there was no accessibility to the classified federal award contracts for the determination of whether other special tests and provisions are applicable to these classified contracts. Under the testing for allowable costs, there were approximately 10% of expenses related to classified contracts within the total population. Further, the total classified contract expense amount is nearly two times program materiality. For special tests and provisions, we were unable to attain classified contracts to examine the required level of security clearance for personnel assigned to the projects. Out of the total of 637 federal awards, the Company identified 96 contracts with the requirement of security clearance. Of these 96 contracts, 35 contracts (approximately 36%) were classified. Aside from the requirement for security clearance, we were unable to review other special provisions applicable to classified contracts given restricted access to classified contracts. Cause: The Company acknowledges that classified contracts are subject to confidentiality requirements as mandated by external regulators. Access to classified information within these contracts are strictly limited to authorized auditors who have been granted clearance by relevant regulatory authorities. Effect: Audit conclusion cannot be reached for the Company’s compliance with allowable costs and special tests and provisions. Questioned Cost: Unknown Recommendation: The Company is advised to engage with the external regulators to seek clarification on the scope limitation and explore any possible flexibility or alternative approaches. Views of responsible officials: See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding Reference Number 2024-001 Qualified Auditor’s Opinion for Allowable Costs and Activities Allowed and Unallowed and Special Tests and Provisions for Research & Development Cluster Due to Material Scope Limitations Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.508 (d), the auditee must provide the auditor access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and any other information needed for the auditor to perform the audit required for the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Condition/Context: During our testing of allowable costs and special tests and provisions, access to classified contracts was restricted. Therefore, we were unable to attain contracts that are deemed to be classified. Consequently, the audit evidence was insufficient to support whether the Company has incurred expenses that are allowable in pursuant with the terms and conditions of federal awards. Further, there was no accessibility to the classified federal award contracts for the determination of whether other special tests and provisions are applicable to these classified contracts. Under the testing for allowable costs, there were approximately 10% of expenses related to classified contracts within the total population. Further, the total classified contract expense amount is nearly two times program materiality. For special tests and provisions, we were unable to attain classified contracts to examine the required level of security clearance for personnel assigned to the projects. Out of the total of 637 federal awards, the Company identified 96 contracts with the requirement of security clearance. Of these 96 contracts, 35 contracts (approximately 36%) were classified. Aside from the requirement for security clearance, we were unable to review other special provisions applicable to classified contracts given restricted access to classified contracts. Cause: The Company acknowledges that classified contracts are subject to confidentiality requirements as mandated by external regulators. Access to classified information within these contracts are strictly limited to authorized auditors who have been granted clearance by relevant regulatory authorities. Effect: Audit conclusion cannot be reached for the Company’s compliance with allowable costs and special tests and provisions. Questioned Cost: Unknown Recommendation: The Company is advised to engage with the external regulators to seek clarification on the scope limitation and explore any possible flexibility or alternative approaches. Views of responsible officials: See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding Reference Number 2024-001 Qualified Auditor’s Opinion for Allowable Costs and Activities Allowed and Unallowed and Special Tests and Provisions for Research & Development Cluster Due to Material Scope Limitations Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.508 (d), the auditee must provide the auditor access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and any other information needed for the auditor to perform the audit required for the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Condition/Context: During our testing of allowable costs and special tests and provisions, access to classified contracts was restricted. Therefore, we were unable to attain contracts that are deemed to be classified. Consequently, the audit evidence was insufficient to support whether the Company has incurred expenses that are allowable in pursuant with the terms and conditions of federal awards. Further, there was no accessibility to the classified federal award contracts for the determination of whether other special tests and provisions are applicable to these classified contracts. Under the testing for allowable costs, there were approximately 10% of expenses related to classified contracts within the total population. Further, the total classified contract expense amount is nearly two times program materiality. For special tests and provisions, we were unable to attain classified contracts to examine the required level of security clearance for personnel assigned to the projects. Out of the total of 637 federal awards, the Company identified 96 contracts with the requirement of security clearance. Of these 96 contracts, 35 contracts (approximately 36%) were classified. Aside from the requirement for security clearance, we were unable to review other special provisions applicable to classified contracts given restricted access to classified contracts. Cause: The Company acknowledges that classified contracts are subject to confidentiality requirements as mandated by external regulators. Access to classified information within these contracts are strictly limited to authorized auditors who have been granted clearance by relevant regulatory authorities. Effect: Audit conclusion cannot be reached for the Company’s compliance with allowable costs and special tests and provisions. Questioned Cost: Unknown Recommendation: The Company is advised to engage with the external regulators to seek clarification on the scope limitation and explore any possible flexibility or alternative approaches. Views of responsible officials: See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding Reference Number 2024-001 Qualified Auditor’s Opinion for Allowable Costs and Activities Allowed and Unallowed and Special Tests and Provisions for Research & Development Cluster Due to Material Scope Limitations Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.508 (d), the auditee must provide the auditor access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and any other information needed for the auditor to perform the audit required for the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Condition/Context: During our testing of allowable costs and special tests and provisions, access to classified contracts was restricted. Therefore, we were unable to attain contracts that are deemed to be classified. Consequently, the audit evidence was insufficient to support whether the Company has incurred expenses that are allowable in pursuant with the terms and conditions of federal awards. Further, there was no accessibility to the classified federal award contracts for the determination of whether other special tests and provisions are applicable to these classified contracts. Under the testing for allowable costs, there were approximately 10% of expenses related to classified contracts within the total population. Further, the total classified contract expense amount is nearly two times program materiality. For special tests and provisions, we were unable to attain classified contracts to examine the required level of security clearance for personnel assigned to the projects. Out of the total of 637 federal awards, the Company identified 96 contracts with the requirement of security clearance. Of these 96 contracts, 35 contracts (approximately 36%) were classified. Aside from the requirement for security clearance, we were unable to review other special provisions applicable to classified contracts given restricted access to classified contracts. Cause: The Company acknowledges that classified contracts are subject to confidentiality requirements as mandated by external regulators. Access to classified information within these contracts are strictly limited to authorized auditors who have been granted clearance by relevant regulatory authorities. Effect: Audit conclusion cannot be reached for the Company’s compliance with allowable costs and special tests and provisions. Questioned Cost: Unknown Recommendation: The Company is advised to engage with the external regulators to seek clarification on the scope limitation and explore any possible flexibility or alternative approaches. Views of responsible officials: See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding Reference Number 2024-001 Qualified Auditor’s Opinion for Allowable Costs and Activities Allowed and Unallowed and Special Tests and Provisions for Research & Development Cluster Due to Material Scope Limitations Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.508 (d), the auditee must provide the auditor access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and any other information needed for the auditor to perform the audit required for the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Condition/Context: During our testing of allowable costs and special tests and provisions, access to classified contracts was restricted. Therefore, we were unable to attain contracts that are deemed to be classified. Consequently, the audit evidence was insufficient to support whether the Company has incurred expenses that are allowable in pursuant with the terms and conditions of federal awards. Further, there was no accessibility to the classified federal award contracts for the determination of whether other special tests and provisions are applicable to these classified contracts. Under the testing for allowable costs, there were approximately 10% of expenses related to classified contracts within the total population. Further, the total classified contract expense amount is nearly two times program materiality. For special tests and provisions, we were unable to attain classified contracts to examine the required level of security clearance for personnel assigned to the projects. Out of the total of 637 federal awards, the Company identified 96 contracts with the requirement of security clearance. Of these 96 contracts, 35 contracts (approximately 36%) were classified. Aside from the requirement for security clearance, we were unable to review other special provisions applicable to classified contracts given restricted access to classified contracts. Cause: The Company acknowledges that classified contracts are subject to confidentiality requirements as mandated by external regulators. Access to classified information within these contracts are strictly limited to authorized auditors who have been granted clearance by relevant regulatory authorities. Effect: Audit conclusion cannot be reached for the Company’s compliance with allowable costs and special tests and provisions. Questioned Cost: Unknown Recommendation: The Company is advised to engage with the external regulators to seek clarification on the scope limitation and explore any possible flexibility or alternative approaches. Views of responsible officials: See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding Reference Number 2024-001 Qualified Auditor’s Opinion for Allowable Costs and Activities Allowed and Unallowed and Special Tests and Provisions for Research & Development Cluster Due to Material Scope Limitations Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.508 (d), the auditee must provide the auditor access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and any other information needed for the auditor to perform the audit required for the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Condition/Context: During our testing of allowable costs and special tests and provisions, access to classified contracts was restricted. Therefore, we were unable to attain contracts that are deemed to be classified. Consequently, the audit evidence was insufficient to support whether the Company has incurred expenses that are allowable in pursuant with the terms and conditions of federal awards. Further, there was no accessibility to the classified federal award contracts for the determination of whether other special tests and provisions are applicable to these classified contracts. Under the testing for allowable costs, there were approximately 10% of expenses related to classified contracts within the total population. Further, the total classified contract expense amount is nearly two times program materiality. For special tests and provisions, we were unable to attain classified contracts to examine the required level of security clearance for personnel assigned to the projects. Out of the total of 637 federal awards, the Company identified 96 contracts with the requirement of security clearance. Of these 96 contracts, 35 contracts (approximately 36%) were classified. Aside from the requirement for security clearance, we were unable to review other special provisions applicable to classified contracts given restricted access to classified contracts. Cause: The Company acknowledges that classified contracts are subject to confidentiality requirements as mandated by external regulators. Access to classified information within these contracts are strictly limited to authorized auditors who have been granted clearance by relevant regulatory authorities. Effect: Audit conclusion cannot be reached for the Company’s compliance with allowable costs and special tests and provisions. Questioned Cost: Unknown Recommendation: The Company is advised to engage with the external regulators to seek clarification on the scope limitation and explore any possible flexibility or alternative approaches. Views of responsible officials: See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding Reference Number 2024-001 Qualified Auditor’s Opinion for Allowable Costs and Activities Allowed and Unallowed and Special Tests and Provisions for Research & Development Cluster Due to Material Scope Limitations Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.508 (d), the auditee must provide the auditor access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and any other information needed for the auditor to perform the audit required for the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Condition/Context: During our testing of allowable costs and special tests and provisions, access to classified contracts was restricted. Therefore, we were unable to attain contracts that are deemed to be classified. Consequently, the audit evidence was insufficient to support whether the Company has incurred expenses that are allowable in pursuant with the terms and conditions of federal awards. Further, there was no accessibility to the classified federal award contracts for the determination of whether other special tests and provisions are applicable to these classified contracts. Under the testing for allowable costs, there were approximately 10% of expenses related to classified contracts within the total population. Further, the total classified contract expense amount is nearly two times program materiality. For special tests and provisions, we were unable to attain classified contracts to examine the required level of security clearance for personnel assigned to the projects. Out of the total of 637 federal awards, the Company identified 96 contracts with the requirement of security clearance. Of these 96 contracts, 35 contracts (approximately 36%) were classified. Aside from the requirement for security clearance, we were unable to review other special provisions applicable to classified contracts given restricted access to classified contracts. Cause: The Company acknowledges that classified contracts are subject to confidentiality requirements as mandated by external regulators. Access to classified information within these contracts are strictly limited to authorized auditors who have been granted clearance by relevant regulatory authorities. Effect: Audit conclusion cannot be reached for the Company’s compliance with allowable costs and special tests and provisions. Questioned Cost: Unknown Recommendation: The Company is advised to engage with the external regulators to seek clarification on the scope limitation and explore any possible flexibility or alternative approaches. Views of responsible officials: See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding Reference Number 2024-001 Qualified Auditor’s Opinion for Allowable Costs and Activities Allowed and Unallowed and Special Tests and Provisions for Research & Development Cluster Due to Material Scope Limitations Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.508 (d), the auditee must provide the auditor access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and any other information needed for the auditor to perform the audit required for the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Condition/Context: During our testing of allowable costs and special tests and provisions, access to classified contracts was restricted. Therefore, we were unable to attain contracts that are deemed to be classified. Consequently, the audit evidence was insufficient to support whether the Company has incurred expenses that are allowable in pursuant with the terms and conditions of federal awards. Further, there was no accessibility to the classified federal award contracts for the determination of whether other special tests and provisions are applicable to these classified contracts. Under the testing for allowable costs, there were approximately 10% of expenses related to classified contracts within the total population. Further, the total classified contract expense amount is nearly two times program materiality. For special tests and provisions, we were unable to attain classified contracts to examine the required level of security clearance for personnel assigned to the projects. Out of the total of 637 federal awards, the Company identified 96 contracts with the requirement of security clearance. Of these 96 contracts, 35 contracts (approximately 36%) were classified. Aside from the requirement for security clearance, we were unable to review other special provisions applicable to classified contracts given restricted access to classified contracts. Cause: The Company acknowledges that classified contracts are subject to confidentiality requirements as mandated by external regulators. Access to classified information within these contracts are strictly limited to authorized auditors who have been granted clearance by relevant regulatory authorities. Effect: Audit conclusion cannot be reached for the Company’s compliance with allowable costs and special tests and provisions. Questioned Cost: Unknown Recommendation: The Company is advised to engage with the external regulators to seek clarification on the scope limitation and explore any possible flexibility or alternative approaches. Views of responsible officials: See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding Reference Number 2024-001 Qualified Auditor’s Opinion for Allowable Costs and Activities Allowed and Unallowed and Special Tests and Provisions for Research & Development Cluster Due to Material Scope Limitations Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.508 (d), the auditee must provide the auditor access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and any other information needed for the auditor to perform the audit required for the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Condition/Context: During our testing of allowable costs and special tests and provisions, access to classified contracts was restricted. Therefore, we were unable to attain contracts that are deemed to be classified. Consequently, the audit evidence was insufficient to support whether the Company has incurred expenses that are allowable in pursuant with the terms and conditions of federal awards. Further, there was no accessibility to the classified federal award contracts for the determination of whether other special tests and provisions are applicable to these classified contracts. Under the testing for allowable costs, there were approximately 10% of expenses related to classified contracts within the total population. Further, the total classified contract expense amount is nearly two times program materiality. For special tests and provisions, we were unable to attain classified contracts to examine the required level of security clearance for personnel assigned to the projects. Out of the total of 637 federal awards, the Company identified 96 contracts with the requirement of security clearance. Of these 96 contracts, 35 contracts (approximately 36%) were classified. Aside from the requirement for security clearance, we were unable to review other special provisions applicable to classified contracts given restricted access to classified contracts. Cause: The Company acknowledges that classified contracts are subject to confidentiality requirements as mandated by external regulators. Access to classified information within these contracts are strictly limited to authorized auditors who have been granted clearance by relevant regulatory authorities. Effect: Audit conclusion cannot be reached for the Company’s compliance with allowable costs and special tests and provisions. Questioned Cost: Unknown Recommendation: The Company is advised to engage with the external regulators to seek clarification on the scope limitation and explore any possible flexibility or alternative approaches. Views of responsible officials: See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding Reference Number 2024-001 Qualified Auditor’s Opinion for Allowable Costs and Activities Allowed and Unallowed and Special Tests and Provisions for Research & Development Cluster Due to Material Scope Limitations Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.508 (d), the auditee must provide the auditor access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and any other information needed for the auditor to perform the audit required for the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Condition/Context: During our testing of allowable costs and special tests and provisions, access to classified contracts was restricted. Therefore, we were unable to attain contracts that are deemed to be classified. Consequently, the audit evidence was insufficient to support whether the Company has incurred expenses that are allowable in pursuant with the terms and conditions of federal awards. Further, there was no accessibility to the classified federal award contracts for the determination of whether other special tests and provisions are applicable to these classified contracts. Under the testing for allowable costs, there were approximately 10% of expenses related to classified contracts within the total population. Further, the total classified contract expense amount is nearly two times program materiality. For special tests and provisions, we were unable to attain classified contracts to examine the required level of security clearance for personnel assigned to the projects. Out of the total of 637 federal awards, the Company identified 96 contracts with the requirement of security clearance. Of these 96 contracts, 35 contracts (approximately 36%) were classified. Aside from the requirement for security clearance, we were unable to review other special provisions applicable to classified contracts given restricted access to classified contracts. Cause: The Company acknowledges that classified contracts are subject to confidentiality requirements as mandated by external regulators. Access to classified information within these contracts are strictly limited to authorized auditors who have been granted clearance by relevant regulatory authorities. Effect: Audit conclusion cannot be reached for the Company’s compliance with allowable costs and special tests and provisions. Questioned Cost: Unknown Recommendation: The Company is advised to engage with the external regulators to seek clarification on the scope limitation and explore any possible flexibility or alternative approaches. Views of responsible officials: See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding Reference Number 2024-001 Qualified Auditor’s Opinion for Allowable Costs and Activities Allowed and Unallowed and Special Tests and Provisions for Research & Development Cluster Due to Material Scope Limitations Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.508 (d), the auditee must provide the auditor access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and any other information needed for the auditor to perform the audit required for the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Condition/Context: During our testing of allowable costs and special tests and provisions, access to classified contracts was restricted. Therefore, we were unable to attain contracts that are deemed to be classified. Consequently, the audit evidence was insufficient to support whether the Company has incurred expenses that are allowable in pursuant with the terms and conditions of federal awards. Further, there was no accessibility to the classified federal award contracts for the determination of whether other special tests and provisions are applicable to these classified contracts. Under the testing for allowable costs, there were approximately 10% of expenses related to classified contracts within the total population. Further, the total classified contract expense amount is nearly two times program materiality. For special tests and provisions, we were unable to attain classified contracts to examine the required level of security clearance for personnel assigned to the projects. Out of the total of 637 federal awards, the Company identified 96 contracts with the requirement of security clearance. Of these 96 contracts, 35 contracts (approximately 36%) were classified. Aside from the requirement for security clearance, we were unable to review other special provisions applicable to classified contracts given restricted access to classified contracts. Cause: The Company acknowledges that classified contracts are subject to confidentiality requirements as mandated by external regulators. Access to classified information within these contracts are strictly limited to authorized auditors who have been granted clearance by relevant regulatory authorities. Effect: Audit conclusion cannot be reached for the Company’s compliance with allowable costs and special tests and provisions. Questioned Cost: Unknown Recommendation: The Company is advised to engage with the external regulators to seek clarification on the scope limitation and explore any possible flexibility or alternative approaches. Views of responsible officials: See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding Reference Number 2024-001 Qualified Auditor’s Opinion for Allowable Costs and Activities Allowed and Unallowed and Special Tests and Provisions for Research & Development Cluster Due to Material Scope Limitations Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.508 (d), the auditee must provide the auditor access to personnel, accounts, books, records, supporting documentation, and any other information needed for the auditor to perform the audit required for the schedule of expenditures of federal awards. Condition/Context: During our testing of allowable costs and special tests and provisions, access to classified contracts was restricted. Therefore, we were unable to attain contracts that are deemed to be classified. Consequently, the audit evidence was insufficient to support whether the Company has incurred expenses that are allowable in pursuant with the terms and conditions of federal awards. Further, there was no accessibility to the classified federal award contracts for the determination of whether other special tests and provisions are applicable to these classified contracts. Under the testing for allowable costs, there were approximately 10% of expenses related to classified contracts within the total population. Further, the total classified contract expense amount is nearly two times program materiality. For special tests and provisions, we were unable to attain classified contracts to examine the required level of security clearance for personnel assigned to the projects. Out of the total of 637 federal awards, the Company identified 96 contracts with the requirement of security clearance. Of these 96 contracts, 35 contracts (approximately 36%) were classified. Aside from the requirement for security clearance, we were unable to review other special provisions applicable to classified contracts given restricted access to classified contracts. Cause: The Company acknowledges that classified contracts are subject to confidentiality requirements as mandated by external regulators. Access to classified information within these contracts are strictly limited to authorized auditors who have been granted clearance by relevant regulatory authorities. Effect: Audit conclusion cannot be reached for the Company’s compliance with allowable costs and special tests and provisions. Questioned Cost: Unknown Recommendation: The Company is advised to engage with the external regulators to seek clarification on the scope limitation and explore any possible flexibility or alternative approaches. Views of responsible officials: See Corrective Action Plan.