Finding Text
Assistance Listing No: 97.044, Assistance to Firefighters Grant
Federal Grantor: U.S. Department of Homeland Security - Direct Award
Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment
Condition: The District piggybacked on a procurement with Los Angeles County to procure program
equipment, but the District did not have a procurement policy that meets the requirements of Uniform
Guidance and did not adopt a compliant procurement policy for the program by, for example, adopting
the Los Angeles County procurement policy for purposes of the procurement. In addition, the District did
not obtain enough procurement documentation from Los Angeles County prior to approving the
procurement to ensure the procurement was in accordance with Uniform Guidance and the District was
not able to obtain enough information from Los Angeles County to confirm the procurement was in
accordance with the requirements of Uniform Guidance during the single audit. Specifically, the District did not obtain evidence that Los Angeles County publicized the procurement, received an adequate
number of bids and adequately evaluated the bids to select the lowest responsible bidder, ensuring full
and open competition occurred.
Criteria: Uniform Guidance, Sections 200.318 to 200.327 lists procurement requirements that must be
followed by non-federal entities other than states. Section 200.318(a) indicates “the non-Federal entity
must use its own documented procurement procedures which reflect applicable State and local laws and
regulations, provided that the procurements confirm to applicable Federal law and the standards identified
in this section.” Section 200.318(h)(1) indicates “the non-Federal entity must maintain records sufficient
to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to the
following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or
rejection, and the basis for the contract price.”
Cause: The District was inexperienced in the requirements of Uniform Guidance and did not know it
needed to obtain evidence that the procurement met the requirements of Sections 200.318 to 200.327 of
the Uniform Guidance.
Effect: Federal awarding agencies could deny future federal awards to recipients that do not comply with
the Uniform Guidance.
Context: The District obtained the request for proposal, contract and the Los Angeles County purchasing
policy after we identified this finding in an attempt to verify the procurement was in compliance with
Uniform Guidance. The District was able to verify that the Los Angeles County purchasing policy
appeared to comply with Sections 200.318 to 200.327 of the Uniform Guidance, was able to verify the
request for proposal did not request certain name brands, have local preferences or any other provisions
that limited competition, and was able to verify that the contractor’s agreement indicated in was required
to comply with the provisions of the Uniform Guidance. The District was just not able to obtain evidence
the procurement was publicized, an adequate number of bids were received and Los Angeles County
adequately evaluated the bids to select the lowest responsible bidder, ensuring full and open competition
occurred.
Recommendation: The District should continue to try to obtain evidence that Los Angeles County
publicized the procurement, obtained an adequate number of bids and adequately analyzed the bids to
select the lowest responsible bidder. The District should also update its own procurement policy to be in
compliance with Uniform Guidance in case future federal awards are received by the District.
View of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Action: Management’s response and planned
corrective actions are included at the corrective action plan end of this report.