2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
2023-001 Subrecipient Monitoring Cluster: Research and Development Cluster (“R&D Cluster”) Grantor: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Name: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Award Year: FY2023 Pass-through entities and ID Number: Various - All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Assistance Listing Number: Various – All R&D Cluster awards with subrecipients Condition While the University has a detailed pre-award risk assessment process prior to entering into a subrecipient relationship, which includes review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports, subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is not consistently completed. Subsequent review of Uniform Guidance reports for monitoring purposes is completed at the time of a subaward amendment, or no less frequently than an annual basis per University policy, however, for 4 out of 25 subaward selections, the subawards were not amended within a year. As such, over a year passed since a Uniform Guidance report was reviewed for these subrecipients for monitoring purposes. Additionally, given the risk assessments are used to cover certain post-award subrecipient monitoring requirements, we noted the following: • 4 out of 25 selections did not have clear documentation as to which Uniform Guidance report had been specifically reviewed • 3 out of 25 subrecipients had findings/deficiencies in their Uniform Guidance reports and there was no documentation for how the University concluded these were not relevant to their subawards • 1 out of 5 subrecipients without Uniform Guidance reports did not have notations on alternative support that was reviewed in lieu of Uniform Guidance reports, as required by University policy. Criteria 2 CFR 200.332(d) notes that pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: • Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. • Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. • Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by 2 CFR 200.521. Additionally, 2 CFR 200.332(f) notes that a pass-through entity must verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by the Uniform Guidance when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in 2 CFR 200.501. Cause Review of Uniform Guidance reports for post-award monitoring purposes is dependent upon a subaward amendment being executed. If an annual amendment is not executed, there is a gap in the monitoring process as the latest Uniform Guidance reports did not get reviewed. While the University expected all subrecipients to have a subaward amendment processed within a year, the testing noted above identified instances where no amendment was processed, and as such, a Uniform Guidance report was not reviewed within that period of time. Additionally, in regard to the completeness of documentation within the risk assessments, while individuals executing the subaward agreements are required to review the risk assessment form in conjunction with the agreement, there is no formal secondary review required to be evidenced and as such, certain elements were overlooked. Effect The lack of an annual review of subrecipient Uniform Guidance reports may result in potential compliance issues not being identified and management not addressing findings and issuing a management decision, as required under the Uniform Guidance. In addition, the lack of review of the risk assessment form may result in missing information not being identified. Questioned Costs There are no questioned costs associated with this finding. Recommendation We recommend the University review their policies and procedures specific to reviewing Uniform Guidance reports of subrecipients for post-award monitoring purposes to ensure all subrecipient reports are reviewed annually. Additionally, we recommend a formal secondary sign-off be included on the risk assessment form to ensure completeness and agreement with conclusions reached. Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is included in “Management’s Views and Corrective Action Plan” included at the end of this report after the summary schedule of status of prior audit findings
Finding 2023-005 Material weakness in internal control over compliance for subrecipient monitoring Federal Agency: United States Department of State Program Titles: Office of Global Women’s Issues Assistance Listing Number: 19.801 Pass-Through Entity: N/A Award Numbers: SLMAQM21CA3275 Award Periods: September 30, 2021 through September 30, 2025 Criteria Internal control requirements contained in Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, Subpart F ‐ Section 200.332(d) through (f), policy guide, require that a non‐Federal entity monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals. In addition to procedures identified as necessary based upon the evaluation of subrecipient risk or specifically required by the terms and conditions of the award, subaward monitoring must among others include the following: ‐ Reviewing financial and programmatic (performance and special reports) required by the Pass Through Entity (PTE). ‐ Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the federal award provided to the subrecipient from the PTE detected through audits, on-site reviews, and other means. ‐ Issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award provided to the subrecipient from the PTE as required by 2 CFR section 200.521. Condition/Context The Organization’s internal controls require review of quarterly financial and programmatic reports for all sub recipients. During our subrecipient monitoring testing, we note that one of the subrecipient’s ceased to provide the Organization with quarterly financial reports since January 2023 and through the year ended June 30, 2023. Cause The Organization’s did not enforce its policies per the subrecipient agreement to ensure that the quarterly reports are provided and reviewed. Effect The Organization’s subrecipient monitoring does not provide reasonable assurance that the subrecipient used the subaward for authorized purposed purposes in compliance with federal regulations. Questioned Costs $90,000 Repeat Finding No. Recommendation We recommend the Organization implement measures to ensure that all subrecipients comply with reporting and other terms and conditions of the subrecipient agreements. Views of Responsible Individual and Corrective Action Plan Management agrees with the finding and has provided the accompanying corrective action plan.
2023-004 (2019-015) SUBRECIPIENT MONITORING – Repeated and Modified Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Homeland Security/FEMA Federal Program Title & Assistance Listing Number: Homeland Security Grant Program – 97.067 Award Period: Various Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency in Internal Control over Compliance Other Non-compliance Condition During our testing, we noted the Department did not have adequate internal controls in place to ensure compliance with subrecipient monitoring. • Homeland Security Grant Program – 97.067 o This program of the Department lacked evidence that a risk assessment was performed for subrecipients as relates to the risk of noncompliance for those subawards subject to the Uniform Guidance. o This program of the Department lacked evidence that reviews of audits of subrecipients were performed that would allow the Department to identify any potential deficiencies that would require follow-up. Management’s Progress for Repeated Findings: Management made some progress in the performing of risk assessments and reviews of audits for Emergency Management Performance Grants, Disaster Grants – Public Assistance, and Pre-Disaster Mitigation programs. In other areas noted above, management has not yet implemented adequate controls to resolve the finding from the prior years. Criteria According to §200.332 Requirements for pass-through entities of 2 CFR Part 200, all pass-through entities must evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring. In addition, the pass-through entity must monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by §200.521 Management Decision. Department Policy No. GRA 418 Sub-Grant Recipient Monitoring effective June 30, 2017 establishes and implements policy and procedures for the Department staff engaged in the Department’s sub-grant recipient monitoring process. For Mitigation Sub-Grant Monitoring, the Mitigation Specialist shall review the local progress quarterly reports due to the Department. For Non-Disaster Sub-Grant Recipient Monitoring, the Program Manager shall review the local progress quarterly reports due to the Department. Specific to Pre-Monitoring Requirements and Considerations, Department Program Staff shall perform risk-based assessments and apply the assessment to all of the Department’s approved sub-recipients for monitoring purposes and risk designation. Effect The lack of internal controls over this compliance requirement provides an opportunity for noncompliance at the subrecipient level. Potential costs outside the scope of work as well as overall effective project management at the subrecipient level. Cause The Department lacks established internal controls and procedures over financial grant management to ensure compliance with applicable compliance requirements.
FINDING 2023-001 Subject: Research and Development Cluster - Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Agencies: National Science Foundation, US Department of Education Federal Programs: Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences; Higher Education Institutional Aid Assistance Listings Numbers: 47.075, 84.031 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 1759694, P031F180072 Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The University expended $1,076,005 in Research and Development funds during the audit period. Of that amount, $86,788 was passed through to five subrecipients. As a pass-through entity, the University was required to identify the award and applicable requirements and monitor the subrecipient. Procedures to monitor its subrecipients included the following: Reviewing financial and programmatic reports as required by the University. Following up and ensuring the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate actions on all deficiencies pertaining to the federal award provided to the subrecipient detected through audits, on-site reviews, and other means. Issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award provided to the subrecipient. All five subrecipients expended more than $750,000 in federal awards in fiscal year 2022, thus subjecting each to a Single Audit as required by the Uniform Guidance. As such, each subrecipient was required to submit its Single Audit report to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) by March 31, 2023. In November 2023, eight months after the subrecipients' report submission deadline, the University completed the review of the fiscal year 2022 audit reports for all five subrecipients. The delayed monitoring would not have allowed the University to follow up and ensure that the subrecipients took timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the federal awards passed through to the subrecipients from the University. In addition, it would not have allowed for the University to issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award provided to the subrecipient within six months of acceptance by the FAC. The lack of effective internal controls and noncompliance, as related to the monitoring of the five subrecipients, were systemic issues throughout the audit period. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 15 INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.332 states in part: "All pass-through entities must: . . . (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: . . . (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. . . ." 2 CFR 200.521(d) states in part: "The federal awarding agency or pass-through entity responsible for issuing a management decision must do so within six months of acceptance of the audit report by the FAC. . . ." Cause The system of internal controls as developed by management of the University was not properly implemented to ensure that subrecipient audit reports were received and reviewed in a timely manner. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, subrecipients to whom payments were made were not adequately monitored. The failure to establish a sufficient system of internal controls allowed noncompliance with the grant agreements and the Subrecipient Monitoring compliance requirement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 16 INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the University's management establish a system of internal controls, including segregation of duties, related to the grant agreements and compliance requirements listed above. An internal control system, including segregation of duties, should be designed and operate effectively to provide reasonable assurance that material noncompliance with the grant agreement or a compliance requirement of a federal program will be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. In order to have an effective internal control system, it is important to have proper segregation of duties. This is accomplished by making sure proper oversight, reviews, and approvals take place and to have a separation of functions over certain activities related to the program. The fundamental premise of segregation of duties is that an individual or small group of individuals should not be in a position to initiate, approve, undertake, and review the same activity. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-001 Subject: Research and Development Cluster - Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Agencies: National Science Foundation, US Department of Education Federal Programs: Social, Behavioral, and Economic Sciences; Higher Education Institutional Aid Assistance Listings Numbers: 47.075, 84.031 Federal Award Numbers and Years (or Other Identifying Numbers): 1759694, P031F180072 Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context The University expended $1,076,005 in Research and Development funds during the audit period. Of that amount, $86,788 was passed through to five subrecipients. As a pass-through entity, the University was required to identify the award and applicable requirements and monitor the subrecipient. Procedures to monitor its subrecipients included the following: Reviewing financial and programmatic reports as required by the University. Following up and ensuring the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate actions on all deficiencies pertaining to the federal award provided to the subrecipient detected through audits, on-site reviews, and other means. Issuing a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award provided to the subrecipient. All five subrecipients expended more than $750,000 in federal awards in fiscal year 2022, thus subjecting each to a Single Audit as required by the Uniform Guidance. As such, each subrecipient was required to submit its Single Audit report to the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC) by March 31, 2023. In November 2023, eight months after the subrecipients' report submission deadline, the University completed the review of the fiscal year 2022 audit reports for all five subrecipients. The delayed monitoring would not have allowed the University to follow up and ensure that the subrecipients took timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the federal awards passed through to the subrecipients from the University. In addition, it would not have allowed for the University to issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining to the federal award provided to the subrecipient within six months of acceptance by the FAC. The lack of effective internal controls and noncompliance, as related to the monitoring of the five subrecipients, were systemic issues throughout the audit period. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 15 INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.332 states in part: "All pass-through entities must: . . . (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: . . . (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. . . ." 2 CFR 200.521(d) states in part: "The federal awarding agency or pass-through entity responsible for issuing a management decision must do so within six months of acceptance of the audit report by the FAC. . . ." Cause The system of internal controls as developed by management of the University was not properly implemented to ensure that subrecipient audit reports were received and reviewed in a timely manner. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, subrecipients to whom payments were made were not adequately monitored. The failure to establish a sufficient system of internal controls allowed noncompliance with the grant agreements and the Subrecipient Monitoring compliance requirement. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 16 INDIANA STATE UNIVERSITY SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that the University's management establish a system of internal controls, including segregation of duties, related to the grant agreements and compliance requirements listed above. An internal control system, including segregation of duties, should be designed and operate effectively to provide reasonable assurance that material noncompliance with the grant agreement or a compliance requirement of a federal program will be prevented, or detected and corrected, on a timely basis. In order to have an effective internal control system, it is important to have proper segregation of duties. This is accomplished by making sure proper oversight, reviews, and approvals take place and to have a separation of functions over certain activities related to the program. The fundamental premise of segregation of duties is that an individual or small group of individuals should not be in a position to initiate, approve, undertake, and review the same activity. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
FINDING 2023-002 Subject: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund - Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Agency: Department of Education Federal Program: COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund Assistance Listings Number: 84.425U Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): S425U210013 Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The School Corporation had not properly designed or implemented a system of internal controls, which would include appropriate segregation of duties, that would likely be effective in preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance related to the COVID-19 - Education Stabilization Fund (ESF) funds passed through to subrecipients. The School Corporation received and passed through to subrecipients $420,500 of ESF funds. The School Corporation is to clearly identify the award and applicable requirements to the subrecipients, evaluate the risk of noncompliance related to the subrecipients to determine appropriate monitoring of the subaward, and monitor the activities of the subrecipients to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, complies with the terms and conditions of the subaward, and achieves performance goals. The School Corporation did not enter into an agreement with the subrecipients. As such there is no agreement between the School Corporation and the subrecipients that clearly identifies the award as a subaward or includes all the required data elements. In addition, the School Corporation did not have any policies or procedures in place to evaluate the subrecipients' risk of noncompliance or to monitor the activity of the subrecipients. Per inquiry of the School Corporation, it was determined an evaluation of the risk of noncompliance for the subrecipients was not completed, nor did the subrecipients' files support any such evaluation. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.332 states: "All pass-through entities must: INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 WEST LAFAYETTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and include the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward notification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient name (which must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier); (ii) Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal award date in § 200.1 of this part) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated by this action by the pass-through entity to the subrecipient; (viii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the pass-through entity including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the passthrough entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required to be responsive to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the Pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the award is R&D; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is charged) per § 200.414. (2) All requirements imposed by the pass-through entity on the subrecipient so that the Federal award is used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 WEST LAFAYETTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (3) Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient in order for the pass-through entity to meet its own responsibility to the Federal awarding agency including identification of any required financial and performance reports; (4) (i) An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the subrecipient and the Federal Government. If no approved rate exists, the pass-through entity must determine the appropriate rate in collaboration with the subrecipient, which is either: (A) The negotiated indirect cost rate between the pass-through entity and the subrecipient; which can be based on a prior negotiated rate between a different PTE and the same subrecipient. If basing the rate on a previously negotiated rate, the passthrough entity is not required to collect information justifying this rate, but may elect to do so; (B) The de minimis indirect cost rate. (ii) The pass-through entity must not require use of a de minimis indirect cost rate if the subrecipient has a Federally approved rate. Subrecipients can elect to use the cost allocation method to account for indirect costs in accordance with § 200.405(d). (5) A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to have access to the subrecipient's records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity to meet the requirements of this part; and (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. . . . (b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency). (c) Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in § 200.208. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 WEST LAFAYETTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward and not responsible for resolving crosscutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section § 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. (e) Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient (as described in paragraph (b) of this section), the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: (1) Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on programrelated matters; and (2) Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations; (3) Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in § 200.425. (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. (g) Consider whether the results of the subrecipient's audits, on-site reviews, or other monitoring indicate conditions that necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's own records. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 WEST LAFAYETTE COMMUNITY SCHOOL CORPORATION SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (h) Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in § 200.339 of this part and in program regulations." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the School Corporation. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the School Corporation's management statements of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, the School Corporation did not properly evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance or adequately monitor the subrecipients. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the School Corporation. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the School Corporation establish a proper system of internal controls, including segregation of duties, to evaluate the subrecipients risk of noncompliance and adequately monitor the subrecipients. Additionally, policies and procedures should be implemented to ensure appropriate reviews, approvals, and oversight are taking place, as needed, to evaluate and monitor its subrecipients. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.
Program: Various, including AL 84.027 – Special Education Grants to States; AL 84.173 – COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants; AL 84.425D – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER I and ESSER II); AL 84.425U – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) – Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: Various, including H027A210079, FFY 2022; H173X210077, FFY 2022; S425D200048, grant period ending 9/30/2022; S425D210048, grant period ending 9/30/2023; S425U210048, grant period ending 9/30/2024. Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 3474.1 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of Education adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 200.207(a). Per 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023), allowable costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.332 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: All pass-through entities must: * * * * (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. * * * * (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward[.] * * * * (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. 2 CFR § 200.521 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: (c) Pass-through entity. As provided in § 200.332(d), the pass-through entity must be responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings that relate to Federal awards it makes to subrecipients. (d) Time requirements. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity responsible for issuing a management decision must do so within six months of acceptance of the audit report by the FAC. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that subrecipients are using grant funds for allowable purposes. Good internal control also requires procedures to ensure that subrecipient Single Audit reports are being reviewed, and management decision letters are being issued in a timely manner to ensure that corrective action is being implemented. Condition: For 3 of 27 subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not perform adequate subrecipient monitoring to ensure that funds were used for allowable purposes. For seven subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Education Stabilization Fund and/or Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter within the time requirement for five subrecipients and did not issue a management decision letter for two subrecipients. The Agency also failed to track and review the Single Audit report for one subrecipient. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: The Agency performs various subrecipient monitoring activities during the year to ensure that subrecipients are using funds for an allowable purpose. These activities include reviewing a sample of expenditures from all reimbursement requests, tracking subrecipient audit requirements and reviewing Single Audit reports, and performing fiscal monitoring on a three-year basis. During review of reimbursement requests, the Agency does not perform procedures to ensure that salary and benefits allocated to the Special Education (SPED) grants are adequately supported by underlying documentation for a majority of its subrecipients. Rather the Agency relies on the fiscal monitoring to test that payroll is being properly allocated to grants, and the subrecipients have procedures in place to comply with Uniform Guidance Requirements. During testing of 27 subrecipients that received SPED grants, we noted the following for three subrecipients: • For the first subrecipient, the Agency had never completed a fiscal monitoring review. The Agency indicated that it was currently conducting fiscal monitoring of the school, but the subrecipient had been slow to provide documentation, resulting in delays. • The second subrecipient also did not have a fiscal monitoring review. At the time of the reimbursement, moreover, the Agency did not review any underlying documentation to support the costs allocated to the grant. The Agency stated that it relied on the entity’s annual audit to ensure costs were allocated properly; however, the subrecipient had not had a recent Single Audit in which the Special Education Cluster was a major program. • The third subrecipient had a fiscal monitoring review of payroll costs, but there was no documentation to show that the Agency had reviewed other purchased services at the time of reimbursement or during the fiscal monitoring. During review of the Agency’s procedures for reviewing subrecipient Single Audits, we noted the following: • For two subrecipients tested, their Single Audits noted significant deficiencies and material weaknesses, including one instance of questioned costs totaling $105,273; however, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter on the findings or provide documentation of any follow-up performed. • For five subrecipients tested, the management decision letter was issued eight to nine months after the audit was made available on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC). • One subrecipient was not being tracked by the Agency. This subrecipient had received $939,358 in Federal funds from the Agency. After the APA pointed this out, the Agency obtained a copy of the subrecipient’s Single Audit report, which noted no findings. Cause: Inadequate subrecipient monitoring procedures. The Agency stated it had other priorities during the year that delayed its review of the subrecipients’ Single Audit reports. Effect: Without adequate procedures, there is increased risk of noncompliance with Federal regulations, audit findings of subrecipients not being corrected, and an increased risk of loss or misuse of funds. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its procedures for reimbursements and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients are operating in compliance with Federal requirements. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that all subrecipients are being tracked for Single Audit requirements, and management decisions are issued in response to all findings in a timely manner. Management Response: First SPED subrecipient – The first recipient’s fiscal monitoring review is part of the current annual group of recipients being monitored; set to close June 30, 2024. Second SPED subrecipient – As part of the FY2020 federal Single Audit testing conducted by KPMG, determined the after-the-fact verification as a method to certify that the payment received on a project is reasonable in relation to the amount of work performed. Third SPED subrecipient – Purchased services and supplies were reviewed during fiscal monitoring, but the documentation was in paper form, not electronic, and was not initially provided to the auditors when requested. It was provided on March 4, 2024, when located. Single Audits – Due to extensive time commitment to State audit facilitation and Education Stabilization Fund Annual Performance Reporting, some management decision letters were not issued or were issued late. The NDE staff member performing the annual audit reviews was not aware of an additional subrecipient that needed reviewed. APA Response: The Special Education Cluster was not a major program for the second subrecipient in FY2020. For the third subrecipient, we originally requested the Agency’s fiscal monitoring documentation on December 21, 2023. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-305(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022) requires compliance with such a request to occur within “three business days after actual receipt of the request.” The only exceptions to that three-day response requirement are if there is “a legal basis for refusal to comply with the request” or “the entire request cannot with reasonable good faith efforts be fulfilled within three business days after actual receipt of the request due to the significant difficulty or the extensiveness of the request.” In either instance, § 84-305(2) requires the recipient of the request to take specific action in claiming the exception. The Agency failed to do so, clearly violating § 84-305(2). In no case not involving a legal basis for noncompliance, moreover, may the required compliance “exceed three calendar weeks after actual receipt of such request by any public entity.” Nevertheless, the additional documentation was not provided until over 11 weeks after being requested, which is another clear violation of § 84-305(2).
Program: Various, including AL 84.027 – Special Education Grants to States; AL 84.173 – COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants; AL 84.425D – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER I and ESSER II); AL 84.425U – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) – Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: Various, including H027A210079, FFY 2022; H173X210077, FFY 2022; S425D200048, grant period ending 9/30/2022; S425D210048, grant period ending 9/30/2023; S425U210048, grant period ending 9/30/2024. Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 3474.1 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of Education adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 200.207(a). Per 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023), allowable costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.332 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: All pass-through entities must: * * * * (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. * * * * (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward[.] * * * * (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. 2 CFR § 200.521 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: (c) Pass-through entity. As provided in § 200.332(d), the pass-through entity must be responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings that relate to Federal awards it makes to subrecipients. (d) Time requirements. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity responsible for issuing a management decision must do so within six months of acceptance of the audit report by the FAC. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that subrecipients are using grant funds for allowable purposes. Good internal control also requires procedures to ensure that subrecipient Single Audit reports are being reviewed, and management decision letters are being issued in a timely manner to ensure that corrective action is being implemented. Condition: For 3 of 27 subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not perform adequate subrecipient monitoring to ensure that funds were used for allowable purposes. For seven subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Education Stabilization Fund and/or Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter within the time requirement for five subrecipients and did not issue a management decision letter for two subrecipients. The Agency also failed to track and review the Single Audit report for one subrecipient. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: The Agency performs various subrecipient monitoring activities during the year to ensure that subrecipients are using funds for an allowable purpose. These activities include reviewing a sample of expenditures from all reimbursement requests, tracking subrecipient audit requirements and reviewing Single Audit reports, and performing fiscal monitoring on a three-year basis. During review of reimbursement requests, the Agency does not perform procedures to ensure that salary and benefits allocated to the Special Education (SPED) grants are adequately supported by underlying documentation for a majority of its subrecipients. Rather the Agency relies on the fiscal monitoring to test that payroll is being properly allocated to grants, and the subrecipients have procedures in place to comply with Uniform Guidance Requirements. During testing of 27 subrecipients that received SPED grants, we noted the following for three subrecipients: • For the first subrecipient, the Agency had never completed a fiscal monitoring review. The Agency indicated that it was currently conducting fiscal monitoring of the school, but the subrecipient had been slow to provide documentation, resulting in delays. • The second subrecipient also did not have a fiscal monitoring review. At the time of the reimbursement, moreover, the Agency did not review any underlying documentation to support the costs allocated to the grant. The Agency stated that it relied on the entity’s annual audit to ensure costs were allocated properly; however, the subrecipient had not had a recent Single Audit in which the Special Education Cluster was a major program. • The third subrecipient had a fiscal monitoring review of payroll costs, but there was no documentation to show that the Agency had reviewed other purchased services at the time of reimbursement or during the fiscal monitoring. During review of the Agency’s procedures for reviewing subrecipient Single Audits, we noted the following: • For two subrecipients tested, their Single Audits noted significant deficiencies and material weaknesses, including one instance of questioned costs totaling $105,273; however, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter on the findings or provide documentation of any follow-up performed. • For five subrecipients tested, the management decision letter was issued eight to nine months after the audit was made available on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC). • One subrecipient was not being tracked by the Agency. This subrecipient had received $939,358 in Federal funds from the Agency. After the APA pointed this out, the Agency obtained a copy of the subrecipient’s Single Audit report, which noted no findings. Cause: Inadequate subrecipient monitoring procedures. The Agency stated it had other priorities during the year that delayed its review of the subrecipients’ Single Audit reports. Effect: Without adequate procedures, there is increased risk of noncompliance with Federal regulations, audit findings of subrecipients not being corrected, and an increased risk of loss or misuse of funds. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its procedures for reimbursements and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients are operating in compliance with Federal requirements. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that all subrecipients are being tracked for Single Audit requirements, and management decisions are issued in response to all findings in a timely manner. Management Response: First SPED subrecipient – The first recipient’s fiscal monitoring review is part of the current annual group of recipients being monitored; set to close June 30, 2024. Second SPED subrecipient – As part of the FY2020 federal Single Audit testing conducted by KPMG, determined the after-the-fact verification as a method to certify that the payment received on a project is reasonable in relation to the amount of work performed. Third SPED subrecipient – Purchased services and supplies were reviewed during fiscal monitoring, but the documentation was in paper form, not electronic, and was not initially provided to the auditors when requested. It was provided on March 4, 2024, when located. Single Audits – Due to extensive time commitment to State audit facilitation and Education Stabilization Fund Annual Performance Reporting, some management decision letters were not issued or were issued late. The NDE staff member performing the annual audit reviews was not aware of an additional subrecipient that needed reviewed. APA Response: The Special Education Cluster was not a major program for the second subrecipient in FY2020. For the third subrecipient, we originally requested the Agency’s fiscal monitoring documentation on December 21, 2023. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-305(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022) requires compliance with such a request to occur within “three business days after actual receipt of the request.” The only exceptions to that three-day response requirement are if there is “a legal basis for refusal to comply with the request” or “the entire request cannot with reasonable good faith efforts be fulfilled within three business days after actual receipt of the request due to the significant difficulty or the extensiveness of the request.” In either instance, § 84-305(2) requires the recipient of the request to take specific action in claiming the exception. The Agency failed to do so, clearly violating § 84-305(2). In no case not involving a legal basis for noncompliance, moreover, may the required compliance “exceed three calendar weeks after actual receipt of such request by any public entity.” Nevertheless, the additional documentation was not provided until over 11 weeks after being requested, which is another clear violation of § 84-305(2).
Program: Various, including AL 84.027 – Special Education Grants to States; AL 84.173 – COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants; AL 84.425D – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER I and ESSER II); AL 84.425U – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) – Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: Various, including H027A210079, FFY 2022; H173X210077, FFY 2022; S425D200048, grant period ending 9/30/2022; S425D210048, grant period ending 9/30/2023; S425U210048, grant period ending 9/30/2024. Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 3474.1 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of Education adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 200.207(a). Per 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023), allowable costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.332 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: All pass-through entities must: * * * * (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. * * * * (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward[.] * * * * (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. 2 CFR § 200.521 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: (c) Pass-through entity. As provided in § 200.332(d), the pass-through entity must be responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings that relate to Federal awards it makes to subrecipients. (d) Time requirements. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity responsible for issuing a management decision must do so within six months of acceptance of the audit report by the FAC. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that subrecipients are using grant funds for allowable purposes. Good internal control also requires procedures to ensure that subrecipient Single Audit reports are being reviewed, and management decision letters are being issued in a timely manner to ensure that corrective action is being implemented. Condition: For 3 of 27 subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not perform adequate subrecipient monitoring to ensure that funds were used for allowable purposes. For seven subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Education Stabilization Fund and/or Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter within the time requirement for five subrecipients and did not issue a management decision letter for two subrecipients. The Agency also failed to track and review the Single Audit report for one subrecipient. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: The Agency performs various subrecipient monitoring activities during the year to ensure that subrecipients are using funds for an allowable purpose. These activities include reviewing a sample of expenditures from all reimbursement requests, tracking subrecipient audit requirements and reviewing Single Audit reports, and performing fiscal monitoring on a three-year basis. During review of reimbursement requests, the Agency does not perform procedures to ensure that salary and benefits allocated to the Special Education (SPED) grants are adequately supported by underlying documentation for a majority of its subrecipients. Rather the Agency relies on the fiscal monitoring to test that payroll is being properly allocated to grants, and the subrecipients have procedures in place to comply with Uniform Guidance Requirements. During testing of 27 subrecipients that received SPED grants, we noted the following for three subrecipients: • For the first subrecipient, the Agency had never completed a fiscal monitoring review. The Agency indicated that it was currently conducting fiscal monitoring of the school, but the subrecipient had been slow to provide documentation, resulting in delays. • The second subrecipient also did not have a fiscal monitoring review. At the time of the reimbursement, moreover, the Agency did not review any underlying documentation to support the costs allocated to the grant. The Agency stated that it relied on the entity’s annual audit to ensure costs were allocated properly; however, the subrecipient had not had a recent Single Audit in which the Special Education Cluster was a major program. • The third subrecipient had a fiscal monitoring review of payroll costs, but there was no documentation to show that the Agency had reviewed other purchased services at the time of reimbursement or during the fiscal monitoring. During review of the Agency’s procedures for reviewing subrecipient Single Audits, we noted the following: • For two subrecipients tested, their Single Audits noted significant deficiencies and material weaknesses, including one instance of questioned costs totaling $105,273; however, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter on the findings or provide documentation of any follow-up performed. • For five subrecipients tested, the management decision letter was issued eight to nine months after the audit was made available on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC). • One subrecipient was not being tracked by the Agency. This subrecipient had received $939,358 in Federal funds from the Agency. After the APA pointed this out, the Agency obtained a copy of the subrecipient’s Single Audit report, which noted no findings. Cause: Inadequate subrecipient monitoring procedures. The Agency stated it had other priorities during the year that delayed its review of the subrecipients’ Single Audit reports. Effect: Without adequate procedures, there is increased risk of noncompliance with Federal regulations, audit findings of subrecipients not being corrected, and an increased risk of loss or misuse of funds. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its procedures for reimbursements and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients are operating in compliance with Federal requirements. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that all subrecipients are being tracked for Single Audit requirements, and management decisions are issued in response to all findings in a timely manner. Management Response: First SPED subrecipient – The first recipient’s fiscal monitoring review is part of the current annual group of recipients being monitored; set to close June 30, 2024. Second SPED subrecipient – As part of the FY2020 federal Single Audit testing conducted by KPMG, determined the after-the-fact verification as a method to certify that the payment received on a project is reasonable in relation to the amount of work performed. Third SPED subrecipient – Purchased services and supplies were reviewed during fiscal monitoring, but the documentation was in paper form, not electronic, and was not initially provided to the auditors when requested. It was provided on March 4, 2024, when located. Single Audits – Due to extensive time commitment to State audit facilitation and Education Stabilization Fund Annual Performance Reporting, some management decision letters were not issued or were issued late. The NDE staff member performing the annual audit reviews was not aware of an additional subrecipient that needed reviewed. APA Response: The Special Education Cluster was not a major program for the second subrecipient in FY2020. For the third subrecipient, we originally requested the Agency’s fiscal monitoring documentation on December 21, 2023. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-305(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022) requires compliance with such a request to occur within “three business days after actual receipt of the request.” The only exceptions to that three-day response requirement are if there is “a legal basis for refusal to comply with the request” or “the entire request cannot with reasonable good faith efforts be fulfilled within three business days after actual receipt of the request due to the significant difficulty or the extensiveness of the request.” In either instance, § 84-305(2) requires the recipient of the request to take specific action in claiming the exception. The Agency failed to do so, clearly violating § 84-305(2). In no case not involving a legal basis for noncompliance, moreover, may the required compliance “exceed three calendar weeks after actual receipt of such request by any public entity.” Nevertheless, the additional documentation was not provided until over 11 weeks after being requested, which is another clear violation of § 84-305(2).
Program: Various, including AL 84.027 – Special Education Grants to States; AL 84.173 – COVID-19 Special Education Preschool Grants; AL 84.425D – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ESSER I and ESSER II); AL 84.425U – COVID-19 Education Stabilization Fund – American Rescue Plan – Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief Fund (ARP ESSER) – Subrecipient Monitoring Grant Number & Year: Various, including H027A210079, FFY 2022; H173X210077, FFY 2022; S425D200048, grant period ending 9/30/2022; S425D210048, grant period ending 9/30/2023; S425U210048, grant period ending 9/30/2024. Federal Grantor Agency: U.S. Department of Education Criteria: Per 2 CFR § 3474.1 (January 1, 2023), the U.S. Department of Education adopted the OMB Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR part 200, except for 2 CFR § 200.102(a) and 200.207(a). Per 2 CFR § 200.403 (January 1, 2023), allowable costs must be necessary, reasonable, and adequately documented. 2 CFR § 200.332 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: All pass-through entities must: * * * * (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. * * * * (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward[.] * * * * (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. 2 CFR § 200.521 (January 1, 2023) states, in relevant part, the following: (c) Pass-through entity. As provided in § 200.332(d), the pass-through entity must be responsible for issuing a management decision for audit findings that relate to Federal awards it makes to subrecipients. (d) Time requirements. The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity responsible for issuing a management decision must do so within six months of acceptance of the audit report by the FAC. Good internal control requires procedures to ensure that subrecipients are using grant funds for allowable purposes. Good internal control also requires procedures to ensure that subrecipient Single Audit reports are being reviewed, and management decision letters are being issued in a timely manner to ensure that corrective action is being implemented. Condition: For 3 of 27 subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not perform adequate subrecipient monitoring to ensure that funds were used for allowable purposes. For seven subrecipients tested that received Federal funds from the Education Stabilization Fund and/or Special Education Cluster, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter within the time requirement for five subrecipients and did not issue a management decision letter for two subrecipients. The Agency also failed to track and review the Single Audit report for one subrecipient. Repeat Finding: No Questioned Costs: Unknown Statistical Sample: No Context: The Agency performs various subrecipient monitoring activities during the year to ensure that subrecipients are using funds for an allowable purpose. These activities include reviewing a sample of expenditures from all reimbursement requests, tracking subrecipient audit requirements and reviewing Single Audit reports, and performing fiscal monitoring on a three-year basis. During review of reimbursement requests, the Agency does not perform procedures to ensure that salary and benefits allocated to the Special Education (SPED) grants are adequately supported by underlying documentation for a majority of its subrecipients. Rather the Agency relies on the fiscal monitoring to test that payroll is being properly allocated to grants, and the subrecipients have procedures in place to comply with Uniform Guidance Requirements. During testing of 27 subrecipients that received SPED grants, we noted the following for three subrecipients: • For the first subrecipient, the Agency had never completed a fiscal monitoring review. The Agency indicated that it was currently conducting fiscal monitoring of the school, but the subrecipient had been slow to provide documentation, resulting in delays. • The second subrecipient also did not have a fiscal monitoring review. At the time of the reimbursement, moreover, the Agency did not review any underlying documentation to support the costs allocated to the grant. The Agency stated that it relied on the entity’s annual audit to ensure costs were allocated properly; however, the subrecipient had not had a recent Single Audit in which the Special Education Cluster was a major program. • The third subrecipient had a fiscal monitoring review of payroll costs, but there was no documentation to show that the Agency had reviewed other purchased services at the time of reimbursement or during the fiscal monitoring. During review of the Agency’s procedures for reviewing subrecipient Single Audits, we noted the following: • For two subrecipients tested, their Single Audits noted significant deficiencies and material weaknesses, including one instance of questioned costs totaling $105,273; however, the Agency did not issue a management decision letter on the findings or provide documentation of any follow-up performed. • For five subrecipients tested, the management decision letter was issued eight to nine months after the audit was made available on the Federal Audit Clearinghouse (FAC). • One subrecipient was not being tracked by the Agency. This subrecipient had received $939,358 in Federal funds from the Agency. After the APA pointed this out, the Agency obtained a copy of the subrecipient’s Single Audit report, which noted no findings. Cause: Inadequate subrecipient monitoring procedures. The Agency stated it had other priorities during the year that delayed its review of the subrecipients’ Single Audit reports. Effect: Without adequate procedures, there is increased risk of noncompliance with Federal regulations, audit findings of subrecipients not being corrected, and an increased risk of loss or misuse of funds. Recommendation: We recommend the Agency review its procedures for reimbursements and fiscal monitoring to ensure subrecipients are operating in compliance with Federal requirements. We also recommend the Agency improve procedures to ensure that all subrecipients are being tracked for Single Audit requirements, and management decisions are issued in response to all findings in a timely manner. Management Response: First SPED subrecipient – The first recipient’s fiscal monitoring review is part of the current annual group of recipients being monitored; set to close June 30, 2024. Second SPED subrecipient – As part of the FY2020 federal Single Audit testing conducted by KPMG, determined the after-the-fact verification as a method to certify that the payment received on a project is reasonable in relation to the amount of work performed. Third SPED subrecipient – Purchased services and supplies were reviewed during fiscal monitoring, but the documentation was in paper form, not electronic, and was not initially provided to the auditors when requested. It was provided on March 4, 2024, when located. Single Audits – Due to extensive time commitment to State audit facilitation and Education Stabilization Fund Annual Performance Reporting, some management decision letters were not issued or were issued late. The NDE staff member performing the annual audit reviews was not aware of an additional subrecipient that needed reviewed. APA Response: The Special Education Cluster was not a major program for the second subrecipient in FY2020. For the third subrecipient, we originally requested the Agency’s fiscal monitoring documentation on December 21, 2023. Neb. Rev. Stat. § 84-305(2) (Cum. Supp. 2022) requires compliance with such a request to occur within “three business days after actual receipt of the request.” The only exceptions to that three-day response requirement are if there is “a legal basis for refusal to comply with the request” or “the entire request cannot with reasonable good faith efforts be fulfilled within three business days after actual receipt of the request due to the significant difficulty or the extensiveness of the request.” In either instance, § 84-305(2) requires the recipient of the request to take specific action in claiming the exception. The Agency failed to do so, clearly violating § 84-305(2). In no case not involving a legal basis for noncompliance, moreover, may the required compliance “exceed three calendar weeks after actual receipt of such request by any public entity.” Nevertheless, the additional documentation was not provided until over 11 weeks after being requested, which is another clear violation of § 84-305(2).