Reference Number: 2023-009 Category of Finding: Subrecipient Monitoring Type of Finding: Material Weakness and Material Instance of Noncompliance State Administering Department: California Department of Public Health (Public Health) Assistance Listing Number: 93.323 Federal Program Title: Epidemiology and Laboratory Capacity for Infectious Diseases (ELC) Federal Award Number and Year: NU50CK000539; 2021 Criteria Title 2 – Grants and Agreements. Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart D – Post Federal Award Requirements. §200.303 Internal controls (2 CFR 200.303): The non-Federal entity must: (e) 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). Title 2 – Grants and Agreements. Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart D – Post Federal Award Requirements. §200.332 Requirements for pass-through entities (2 CFR 200.332): All pass-through entities must: (a) Verify that the subrecipient is not excluded or disqualified in accordance with §180.300. Verification methods are provided in §180.300, which include confirming in SAM.gov that a potential subrecipient is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from receiving Federal funds. (b) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward modification. 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. (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 pass-through 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. (c) Evaluate each subrecipient’s fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient’s risk, a pass-through entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards: (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have 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 agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (e) 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 cross-cutting 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 passthrough 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. (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. Condition Public Health did not establish a formal risk assessment process over its subrecipients of federal awards by which to determine the frequency and extent of subrecipient monitoring to be performed. While Public Health received reimbursement invoices from subrecipients, there did not appear to be other financial or programmatic monitoring to verify subrecipients complied with applicable requirements. In addition, Public Health did not obtain supporting documentation for any expenditures invoiced by the subrecipients. Follow-up monitoring for subrecipients with no single audit reports did not appear to be performed. On-site monitoring visits were not completed. Public Health was unable to provide evidence that suspension and debarment status of subrecipients was checked prior to entering into subaward. Public Health used a Department Allocation Letter (DAL) for the COVID-19 program instead of an agreement or contract for the subaward to subrecipients. Certain required information for the subaward federal award information such as Assistance Listings number and Title and Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN) were not clearly identified in the DAL. Identification as a Repeat Finding Finding 2022-011 was reported in the immediate prior year. Cause Procedures to perform the required subrecipient monitoring were not established nor did Public Health perform an appropriate level of monitoring. Effect By not properly evaluating the risk of noncompliance, Public Health may inadvertently award grant funds to subrecipients who lack the necessary mechanisms or understanding to comply with federal statutes. This increases the likelihood of noncompliance arising during the performance of the grant-funded activities. Furthermore, failure to obtain and review single audit reports increases the risk of not properly identifying subrecipient program control weaknesses, noncompliance and performing sufficient follow-up on any subrecipient corrective action. Questioned Costs No questioned costs were identified. Context Disbursements to subrecipients for the ELC totaled $282,954,398, or 49% of total reported program expenditures. Recommendation Public Health should establish and document formal procedures for conducting risk assessments of subrecipient funding, including criteria for evaluating organizational capacity, financial stability, compliance history, and programmatic capabilities. Public Health should also develop and implement procedures outlining the process for obtaining single audit reports from subrecipients. Furthermore, a monitoring mechanism should be implemented to track compliance with the single audit mandate among subrecipients, including regular follow-ups and documentation of communication efforts. Public Health should ensure every subaward includes all requirements imposed 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. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is reported in “Management’s Response and Corrective Action Plan” included in a separate section at the end of this report.
Reference Number: 2023-012 Category of Finding: Subrecipient Monitoring Type of Finding: Material Weakness and Material Instance of Noncompliance State Administering Department: California Department of Social Services Assistance Listing Number: 93.575, 93.596 Federal Program Title: Child Care and Development Block Grant, Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund (part of the Child Care and Development Fund Cluster) Federal Award Numbers and Years: 2101CACCDF; 2021 2101CACCC5; 2021 2234CACCDF; 2022 2234CACCDD; 2022 Criteria Title 2 – Grants and Agreements. Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart D – Post Federal Award Requirements. Standards for Financial and Program Management. §200.303 Internal controls (2 CFR 200.303): The non-Federal entity must: (c) 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). Title 2 – Grants and Agreements. Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart D – Post Federal Award Requirements. Subrecipient Monitoring and Management. §200.332 Requirements for pass-through entities (2 CFR 200.332): A pass-through entity must: (c) Evaluate each subrecipient’s fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraph (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient’s risk, a pass-through entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have 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 any Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (e) Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a pass-through entity must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant developments negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by §200.521. (4) Resolve audit findings specifically related to the subaward. However, the pass-through entity is not responsible for resolving cross-cutting audit findings that apply to the subaward and other Federal awards or subawards. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report and has not been excluded from receiving Federal funding (meaning, has not been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient’s cognizant agency for audit or oversight agency for audit to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting audit findings in accordance with section §200.513(a)(4)(viii). 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. California Code of Regulations. Title 5 Education. § 18023. Compliance Reviews of Contractors. (b) At least once every three (3) years and as resources permit, the California Department of Education shall conduct reviews at the contractor's office(s) and operating facility(ies) to determine the contractor's compliance with applicable laws, regulations or contractual provisions. Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Plan for State/Territory California FFY 2022-24, Amendment 4. Chapter 8 Ensure Grantee Program Integrity and Accountability. 8.1 Internal Controls and Accountability Measures to Help Ensure Program Integrity. 8.1.1 Process to train about CCDF requirements and program integrity. States and territories are required to describe effective internal controls that are in place to ensure program integrity and accountability (98.68(a)), including processes to train child care providers and staff of the Lead Agency and other agencies engaged in the administration of CCDF about program requirements and integrity. v. Monitor and assess policy implementation on an ongoing basis. The Lead Agency conducts announced Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM)/Contract Monitoring Reviews (CMRs) for each contractor on a three- or four-year cycle for non-LEAs and LEAs respectively. The Lead Agency’s Governance and Administration Unit (GAU) conducts ongoing review of individual contractors by sampling the eligibility and need documentation in family files to estimate and reduce error rates. Additionally, the Lead Agency provides ongoing training and technical assistance to contractors in regional sessions, in one-on-one sessions, and/or in cluster with webinars or during face to-face presentations. These sessions address CCDF program administration, requirements, and integrity. Condition We selected 60 subrecipient contracts (14 local educational agency (LEA) contracts and 46 non-LEA contracts) from 50 subrecipient entities and tested compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. We noted the following: LEAs • 3 LEA contracts/contractors had no records for the receipt of a corrective action plan or notification of resolution for findings identified in monitoring reports. • 1 LEA contract/contractor did not have the quarterly fiscal reports available for review for the quarter selected for testing. Non-LEAs • 5 non-LEA contracts/contractors had no records available to demonstrate risk assessment of the contractor. • 4 non-LEA contracts/contractors had no record of on-site monitoring in over 5 years. • 7 non-LEA contracts/contractors had no records for the receipt of the corrective action plan or notification of resolution for findings identified in monitoring reports. • 5 non-LEA contracts/contractors did not have the quarterly fiscal reports available for review for the quarters selected for testing. The monitoring of the contractors’ single audit reports and follow-up on noted findings continued to be a shared responsibility between CDSS and the Department of Education (CDE) during fiscal year 2022-23. The transition of audit report monitoring responsibilities over LEAs receiving CCDF Cluster program funds is still in process and not yet centralized with CDSS. Furthermore, subrecipients continue to report the pass-through entity as CDE and not CDSS. Identification as a Repeat Finding This was not a repeat finding from the immediate prior year. Cause In fiscal year 2021, the administration of the CCDF Cluster program was transitioned from the California Department of Education (CDE) to CDSS. CDSS has been in the process of revising certain policies and procedures, including contractor monitoring. In addition, certain records related to CDE monitoring activities for the contracts selected were unavailable for review. Effect CDSS is at risk for contractor noncompliance if monitoring procedures are not properly designed or executed, and/or documents demonstrating monitoring are not maintained. Questioned Costs $175,631,433 of $332,931,906 sampled contract expenditures for fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Context CDSS contractors may have multiple contracts with varying contract requirements. We selected one or more contracts from 50 different contractors for a total of 60 unique contracts representing $332,931,906 of expenditures incurred during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. The exceptions noted above represented 32 different contracts administered by 28 contractors and represented $175,613,433 or 52.7% of the total sampled contract expenditures. The sample was not a statistically valid sample. Recommendation To enhance the effectiveness of the annual risk assessment process, we recommend a thorough evaluation that focuses on the identification and inclusion of all subrecipients and defined risk criteria as mandated in 2 CFR 200.332. Furthermore, it is crucial to establish and document a transparent basis for risk profiling that directly correlates such profiles with compliance monitoring activities across fiscal, program, and single audit requirements. Furthermore, we recommend CDSS perform a comprehensive post-transition review to ensure all monitoring responsibilities transferred from CDE have been fully identified and assigned. This review should validate robust mechanisms are in place for the accurate documentation and proper retention of records. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is reported in “Management’s Response and Corrective Action Plan” included in a separate section at the end of this report.
Reference Number: 2023-012 Category of Finding: Subrecipient Monitoring Type of Finding: Material Weakness and Material Instance of Noncompliance State Administering Department: California Department of Social Services Assistance Listing Number: 93.575, 93.596 Federal Program Title: Child Care and Development Block Grant, Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund (part of the Child Care and Development Fund Cluster) Federal Award Numbers and Years: 2101CACCDF; 2021 2101CACCC5; 2021 2234CACCDF; 2022 2234CACCDD; 2022 Criteria Title 2 – Grants and Agreements. Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart D – Post Federal Award Requirements. Standards for Financial and Program Management. §200.303 Internal controls (2 CFR 200.303): The non-Federal entity must: (c) 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). Title 2 – Grants and Agreements. Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart D – Post Federal Award Requirements. Subrecipient Monitoring and Management. §200.332 Requirements for pass-through entities (2 CFR 200.332): A pass-through entity must: (c) Evaluate each subrecipient’s fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraph (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient’s risk, a pass-through entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have 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 any Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (e) Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a pass-through entity must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant developments negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by §200.521. (4) Resolve audit findings specifically related to the subaward. However, the pass-through entity is not responsible for resolving cross-cutting audit findings that apply to the subaward and other Federal awards or subawards. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report and has not been excluded from receiving Federal funding (meaning, has not been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient’s cognizant agency for audit or oversight agency for audit to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting audit findings in accordance with section §200.513(a)(4)(viii). 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. California Code of Regulations. Title 5 Education. § 18023. Compliance Reviews of Contractors. (b) At least once every three (3) years and as resources permit, the California Department of Education shall conduct reviews at the contractor's office(s) and operating facility(ies) to determine the contractor's compliance with applicable laws, regulations or contractual provisions. Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Plan for State/Territory California FFY 2022-24, Amendment 4. Chapter 8 Ensure Grantee Program Integrity and Accountability. 8.1 Internal Controls and Accountability Measures to Help Ensure Program Integrity. 8.1.1 Process to train about CCDF requirements and program integrity. States and territories are required to describe effective internal controls that are in place to ensure program integrity and accountability (98.68(a)), including processes to train child care providers and staff of the Lead Agency and other agencies engaged in the administration of CCDF about program requirements and integrity. v. Monitor and assess policy implementation on an ongoing basis. The Lead Agency conducts announced Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM)/Contract Monitoring Reviews (CMRs) for each contractor on a three- or four-year cycle for non-LEAs and LEAs respectively. The Lead Agency’s Governance and Administration Unit (GAU) conducts ongoing review of individual contractors by sampling the eligibility and need documentation in family files to estimate and reduce error rates. Additionally, the Lead Agency provides ongoing training and technical assistance to contractors in regional sessions, in one-on-one sessions, and/or in cluster with webinars or during face to-face presentations. These sessions address CCDF program administration, requirements, and integrity. Condition We selected 60 subrecipient contracts (14 local educational agency (LEA) contracts and 46 non-LEA contracts) from 50 subrecipient entities and tested compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. We noted the following: LEAs • 3 LEA contracts/contractors had no records for the receipt of a corrective action plan or notification of resolution for findings identified in monitoring reports. • 1 LEA contract/contractor did not have the quarterly fiscal reports available for review for the quarter selected for testing. Non-LEAs • 5 non-LEA contracts/contractors had no records available to demonstrate risk assessment of the contractor. • 4 non-LEA contracts/contractors had no record of on-site monitoring in over 5 years. • 7 non-LEA contracts/contractors had no records for the receipt of the corrective action plan or notification of resolution for findings identified in monitoring reports. • 5 non-LEA contracts/contractors did not have the quarterly fiscal reports available for review for the quarters selected for testing. The monitoring of the contractors’ single audit reports and follow-up on noted findings continued to be a shared responsibility between CDSS and the Department of Education (CDE) during fiscal year 2022-23. The transition of audit report monitoring responsibilities over LEAs receiving CCDF Cluster program funds is still in process and not yet centralized with CDSS. Furthermore, subrecipients continue to report the pass-through entity as CDE and not CDSS. Identification as a Repeat Finding This was not a repeat finding from the immediate prior year. Cause In fiscal year 2021, the administration of the CCDF Cluster program was transitioned from the California Department of Education (CDE) to CDSS. CDSS has been in the process of revising certain policies and procedures, including contractor monitoring. In addition, certain records related to CDE monitoring activities for the contracts selected were unavailable for review. Effect CDSS is at risk for contractor noncompliance if monitoring procedures are not properly designed or executed, and/or documents demonstrating monitoring are not maintained. Questioned Costs $175,631,433 of $332,931,906 sampled contract expenditures for fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Context CDSS contractors may have multiple contracts with varying contract requirements. We selected one or more contracts from 50 different contractors for a total of 60 unique contracts representing $332,931,906 of expenditures incurred during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. The exceptions noted above represented 32 different contracts administered by 28 contractors and represented $175,613,433 or 52.7% of the total sampled contract expenditures. The sample was not a statistically valid sample. Recommendation To enhance the effectiveness of the annual risk assessment process, we recommend a thorough evaluation that focuses on the identification and inclusion of all subrecipients and defined risk criteria as mandated in 2 CFR 200.332. Furthermore, it is crucial to establish and document a transparent basis for risk profiling that directly correlates such profiles with compliance monitoring activities across fiscal, program, and single audit requirements. Furthermore, we recommend CDSS perform a comprehensive post-transition review to ensure all monitoring responsibilities transferred from CDE have been fully identified and assigned. This review should validate robust mechanisms are in place for the accurate documentation and proper retention of records. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is reported in “Management’s Response and Corrective Action Plan” included in a separate section at the end of this report.
Reference Number: 2023-012 Category of Finding: Subrecipient Monitoring Type of Finding: Material Weakness and Material Instance of Noncompliance State Administering Department: California Department of Social Services Assistance Listing Number: 93.575, 93.596 Federal Program Title: Child Care and Development Block Grant, Child Care Mandatory and Matching Funds of the Child Care and Development Fund (part of the Child Care and Development Fund Cluster) Federal Award Numbers and Years: 2101CACCDF; 2021 2101CACCC5; 2021 2234CACCDF; 2022 2234CACCDD; 2022 Criteria Title 2 – Grants and Agreements. Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart D – Post Federal Award Requirements. Standards for Financial and Program Management. §200.303 Internal controls (2 CFR 200.303): The non-Federal entity must: (c) 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). Title 2 – Grants and Agreements. Subtitle A – Office of Management and Budget Guidance for Grants and Agreements. Chapter II – Office of Management and Budget Guidance. Part 200 – Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. Subpart D – Post Federal Award Requirements. Subrecipient Monitoring and Management. §200.332 Requirements for pass-through entities (2 CFR 200.332): A pass-through entity must: (c) Evaluate each subrecipient’s fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraph (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient’s risk, a pass-through entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient’s prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have 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 any Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (e) Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a pass-through entity must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant developments negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by §200.521. (4) Resolve audit findings specifically related to the subaward. However, the pass-through entity is not responsible for resolving cross-cutting audit findings that apply to the subaward and other Federal awards or subawards. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report and has not been excluded from receiving Federal funding (meaning, has not been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient’s cognizant agency for audit or oversight agency for audit to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting audit findings in accordance with section §200.513(a)(4)(viii). 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. California Code of Regulations. Title 5 Education. § 18023. Compliance Reviews of Contractors. (b) At least once every three (3) years and as resources permit, the California Department of Education shall conduct reviews at the contractor's office(s) and operating facility(ies) to determine the contractor's compliance with applicable laws, regulations or contractual provisions. Child Care and Development Fund (CCDF) Plan for State/Territory California FFY 2022-24, Amendment 4. Chapter 8 Ensure Grantee Program Integrity and Accountability. 8.1 Internal Controls and Accountability Measures to Help Ensure Program Integrity. 8.1.1 Process to train about CCDF requirements and program integrity. States and territories are required to describe effective internal controls that are in place to ensure program integrity and accountability (98.68(a)), including processes to train child care providers and staff of the Lead Agency and other agencies engaged in the administration of CCDF about program requirements and integrity. v. Monitor and assess policy implementation on an ongoing basis. The Lead Agency conducts announced Categorical Program Monitoring (CPM)/Contract Monitoring Reviews (CMRs) for each contractor on a three- or four-year cycle for non-LEAs and LEAs respectively. The Lead Agency’s Governance and Administration Unit (GAU) conducts ongoing review of individual contractors by sampling the eligibility and need documentation in family files to estimate and reduce error rates. Additionally, the Lead Agency provides ongoing training and technical assistance to contractors in regional sessions, in one-on-one sessions, and/or in cluster with webinars or during face to-face presentations. These sessions address CCDF program administration, requirements, and integrity. Condition We selected 60 subrecipient contracts (14 local educational agency (LEA) contracts and 46 non-LEA contracts) from 50 subrecipient entities and tested compliance with subrecipient monitoring requirements. We noted the following: LEAs • 3 LEA contracts/contractors had no records for the receipt of a corrective action plan or notification of resolution for findings identified in monitoring reports. • 1 LEA contract/contractor did not have the quarterly fiscal reports available for review for the quarter selected for testing. Non-LEAs • 5 non-LEA contracts/contractors had no records available to demonstrate risk assessment of the contractor. • 4 non-LEA contracts/contractors had no record of on-site monitoring in over 5 years. • 7 non-LEA contracts/contractors had no records for the receipt of the corrective action plan or notification of resolution for findings identified in monitoring reports. • 5 non-LEA contracts/contractors did not have the quarterly fiscal reports available for review for the quarters selected for testing. The monitoring of the contractors’ single audit reports and follow-up on noted findings continued to be a shared responsibility between CDSS and the Department of Education (CDE) during fiscal year 2022-23. The transition of audit report monitoring responsibilities over LEAs receiving CCDF Cluster program funds is still in process and not yet centralized with CDSS. Furthermore, subrecipients continue to report the pass-through entity as CDE and not CDSS. Identification as a Repeat Finding This was not a repeat finding from the immediate prior year. Cause In fiscal year 2021, the administration of the CCDF Cluster program was transitioned from the California Department of Education (CDE) to CDSS. CDSS has been in the process of revising certain policies and procedures, including contractor monitoring. In addition, certain records related to CDE monitoring activities for the contracts selected were unavailable for review. Effect CDSS is at risk for contractor noncompliance if monitoring procedures are not properly designed or executed, and/or documents demonstrating monitoring are not maintained. Questioned Costs $175,631,433 of $332,931,906 sampled contract expenditures for fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. Context CDSS contractors may have multiple contracts with varying contract requirements. We selected one or more contracts from 50 different contractors for a total of 60 unique contracts representing $332,931,906 of expenditures incurred during the fiscal year ended June 30, 2023. The exceptions noted above represented 32 different contracts administered by 28 contractors and represented $175,613,433 or 52.7% of the total sampled contract expenditures. The sample was not a statistically valid sample. Recommendation To enhance the effectiveness of the annual risk assessment process, we recommend a thorough evaluation that focuses on the identification and inclusion of all subrecipients and defined risk criteria as mandated in 2 CFR 200.332. Furthermore, it is crucial to establish and document a transparent basis for risk profiling that directly correlates such profiles with compliance monitoring activities across fiscal, program, and single audit requirements. Furthermore, we recommend CDSS perform a comprehensive post-transition review to ensure all monitoring responsibilities transferred from CDE have been fully identified and assigned. This review should validate robust mechanisms are in place for the accurate documentation and proper retention of records. Views of Responsible Officials and Corrective Action Plan Management’s response is reported in “Management’s Response and Corrective Action Plan” included in a separate section at the end of this report.
FINDING REFERENCE NUMBER 2023-061 FEDERAL PROGRAMS (ALN – 93.558) TEMPORARY ASSISTANCE FOR NEEDY FAMILIES (TANF) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES AWARD NUMBERS 2022G996117; 2023996117 (Federal Award Years: 2022 through 2023) ADMINISTRATION ADMINISTRATION FOR SOCIOECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF THE FAMILY (ADSEF, BY ITS SPANISH ACRONYM) COMPLIANCE REQUIREMENT SUBRECIPIENT MONITORING TYPE OF FINDING MATERIAL NONCOMPLIANCE AND MATERIAL WEAKNESS CRITERIA In accordance with 2 CFR 200.332, a pass-through entity must: (a) Verify that the subrecipient is not excluded or disqualified in accordance with § 180.300. Verification methods are provided in § 180.300, which include confirming in SAM.gov that a potential subrecipient is not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded from receiving Federal funds. (b) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and includes the information provided below. A pass-through entity must provide the best available information when some of the information below is unavailable. A pass-through entity must provide the unavailable information when it is obtained. Required information includes: (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient's name (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; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated in the subaward; (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 pass-through entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings title and number; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at the time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the Federal award is for research and development; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is used in accordance with § 200.414). (2) All requirements of the subaward, including requirements imposed by Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (3) Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient for the pass-through entity to meet its responsibilities under the Federal award. This includes information and certifications (see § 200.415) required for submitting financial and performance reports that the pass-through entity must provide to the Federal agency; … (5) A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to access the subrecipient's records and financial statements for the pass-through entity to fulfill its monitoring requirements; and (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning the closeout of the subaward. (c) Evaluate each subrecipient's fraud risk and risk of noncompliance with a subaward to determine the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraph (f) of this section. When evaluating a subrecipient's risk, a pass-through entity should consider the following: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits. This includes considering whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with subpart F and the extent to which the same or similar subawards have 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 any Federal agency monitoring (for example, if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from the Federal agency). (d) If appropriate, consider implementing specific conditions in a subaward as described in § 200.208 and notify the Federal agency of the specific conditions. (e) Monitor the activities of a subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subrecipient complies with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward. The pass-through entity is responsible for monitoring the overall performance of a subrecipient to ensure that the goals and objectives of the subaward are achieved. In monitoring a subrecipient, a pass-through entity must: (1) Review financial and performance reports. (2) Ensure that the subrecipient takes corrective action on all significant developments that negatively affect the subaward. Significant developments include Single Audit findings related to the subaward, other audit findings, site visits, and written notifications from a subrecipient of adverse conditions which will impact their ability to meet the milestones or the objectives of a subaward. When significant developments negatively impact the subaward, a subrecipient must provide the pass-through entity with information on their plan for corrective action and any assistance needed to resolve the situation. (3) Issue a management decision for audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. (4) Resolve audit findings specifically related to the subaward. However, the pass-through entity is not responsible for resolving cross-cutting audit findings that apply to the subaward and other Federal awards or subawards. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report and has not been excluded from receiving Federal funding (meaning, has not been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant agency for audit or oversight agency for audit to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting audit findings in accordance with section § 200.513(a)(4)(viii). 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. (f) Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of the risk posed by the subrecipient (as described in paragraph (c) 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 program-related matters; (2) Performing site visits to review the subrecipient's program operations; and (3) Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in § 200.425. (g) Verify that a subrecipient is audited as required by subpart F of this part. (h) Consider whether the results of a subrecipient's audit, site visits, or other monitoring necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's records. (i) Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in § 200.339 and in program regulations. STATEMENT OF CONDITION As part of our understanding of the program, program staff were interviewed regarding the existence of subrecipients. None of the staff interviewed identified any transactions involving subrecipients. However, in our testing of internal controls and compliance with the allowable costs/cost principles requirement, transactions were selected to assess compliance with this requirement. Upon receiving documentation from a contractor, we realized that the transactions with this supplier were in the capacity of a subrecipient. In addition, the SEFA submitted by the PRDF does not identify any transaction under a subrecipient related to this program. In the final draft of the SEFA submitted for audit procedures, ADSEF reported the amount of $2,411,184, which included all transactions related to preventive services. We examined four (4) vouchers related to these services; the contract, proposal and invoices do not indicate information related to subrecipients. QUESTIONED COSTS No questioned costs identified. PERSPECTIVE INFORMATION This is a systemic deficiency. The staff in charge of administering TANF funds were unaware of the factors required to properly identify subrecipient transactions. The total expenditure reflected in the database related to subrecipient activities totaled $686,052.17 for the audited fiscal year. After providing the requirements for a subrecipient, staff were interviewed again to verify whether other providers met the subrecipient requirements, but no other entities were identified. From our testing, we identified no other subrecipients. Although, in the final draft of the SEFA submitted for audit procedures, all expenditures related to preventive services were included as pass-through expenditures. STATEMENT OF CAUSE The staff in charge of administering the program were unaware of the factors that determine whether a contractor is a subrecipient or a contractor. ADSEF has not established an adequate procedures manual that demonstrates compliance with all requirements for subrecipient activities. POSSIBLE ASSERTED EFFECT ADSEF does not have internal controls related to the identification, management, and reporting of subrecipient activities. This situation prevents compliance with all compliance requirements related to subrecipient monitoring. This situation prevented the proper presentation of Federal expenditures incurred under this program in the SEFA or other financial reports required by Federal agencies. IDENTIFICATION OF REPEAT FINDING No reported as prior audit finding. RECOMMENDATIONS The PRDF must provide training to ADSEF personnel on the requirements and regulations related to subrecipient monitoring. We recommend that management establish internal controls and compliance measures that allow for the identification, reporting, and monitoring of subrecipient activities.
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
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