Finding Text
Finding 2025-001 – Material Weakness AL No: 20.205 Highway Planning and Construction Federal Grantor: U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) Passed-through: California Department of Transportation (Caltrans) and the Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Passed-through Grantor’s No’s.: SPIL-6085 (091) for Caltrans and #240023 for SACOG. Compliance Requirement: Procurement, Suspension and Debarment Criteria: 2 CFR Part 200, Subpart E (Uniform Guidance) Section 200.318(a) states that the “The recipient or subrecipient must maintain and use documented procedures for procurement transactions under a Federal award or subaward, including for acquisition of property or services. These documented procurement procedures must be consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards identified in Sections 200.317 through 200.327.” The contract should have conformed to the following sections in the Caltrans Local Assistance Procedures Manual (LAPM): - Section 10.1 provides requirements for federally funded architectural and engineering (A&E) contracts. - Section 10.3 provides requirements for non-A&E contracts. - Section 10.1.9 states that the local public agency (LPA) must “obtain Caltrans approval on the Exhibit 12- F: Cost Effectiveness/Public Interest Finding/A&E Noncompetitive and retain all documents in the project files” for procurements by noncompetitive proposals. - Section 9.7.2 states that the LPA must have a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) goal set, and “must have an Exhibit 9-D: DBE Contract Goal Methodology submitted to the” District Local Assistance Engineer (DLAE). “LPAs may not advertise the contract before receiving DLAE feedback on the DBE goal.” Condition: Caltrans notified the Authority that two Next-Generation Facility Project (the Project) consulting contracts were procured in compliance the Federal Transit Administration’s (FTA’s) procurement guidelines but did not conform with the State of California LAPM. Caltrans indicated that the AECOM A&E consultant contract procurement did not comply with Sections 10.01 and 10.1.9 of the LAPM, including not including a Public Interest Finding for the sole source procurement of the agreement, and the LeFlore Group, LLC non-A&E consultant contract procurement did not comply with Section 10.3 of the LAPM. In addition, a Disadvantaged Business Enterprise goal was not requested nor completed as part of the advertisement for the project, which was required under Section 9.7.2 of the Caltrans LAPM. Effect: The Authority was not in compliance with the Caltrans LAPM and as a result, the Authority was required to halt work and repay Caltrans and SACOG for funds already reimbursed to the Project of $300,000 under AL 20.205. Cause: Caltrans and SACOG are both pass-through agencies for this grant, with the Authority being the final subrecipient. SACOG was not aware that the procurement requirements under this grant follow U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Highway Administration requirements that differ from U.S. Department of Transportation, Federal Transit Administration requirements, which are administered by a different Caltrans department. As a result, the additional requirements in the LAPM were not communicated to the Authority and the Authority was not aware of the requirements and failed to comply with the LAPM. Context: The Authority submitted the procurement to the Caltrans Federal Transit Administration Programs Procurement Oversight Branch for approval prior to contracting with the consultants and the procurement was approved. However, the grant was provided through the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) and Caltrans has a different oversight Branch for FHWA funded projects, which was not made clear to the Authority by either passthrough agency. AL 20.205 was originally reported on the SEFA and was selected for testing a major program as it was a high-risk Type B program under which the Authority incurred $300,000 of grant expenses and received the grant proceeds prior to June 30, 2025. Caltrans issued a sanction letter on December 9, 2025, which required the grant funds to be returned to Caltrans. As a result, the Authority removed the expenses from the SEFA, but the program is reported as a major program to report the procurement finding on the schedule of findings and questioned costs. - Questioned Costs: $300,000 Recommendation: We recommend the Authority add additional language to its Procurement Policy documenting the requirement to follow Section 10 of the LAPM and the criteria under which it applies when grants are received from the FHWA. Management’s Response: Management’s response is included in the attached Corrective Action Plan. Report on Internal Control over Compliance See finding 2025-001 above, which is also considered to be an internal control over compliance finding in the Major Federal Awards Program Audit.