Finding 503669 (2021-002)

Material weakness in internal control over compliance with procurement procedures meeting the requirements of 2 CFR Part 200. Federal Agency: United States Department of Treasury Program Titles: Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listing Number: 21.027 Pass-Through Entity: King County Award Numbers: 6200091 Award Periods: January 1, 2021 through December 31, 2024 Criteria Internal control requirements contained in Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (the Uniform Guidance), Subpart D ‐ Post Federal Award Requirements, Section 200.318 through 200.326 Internal Controls, require that a non‐Federal entity use their own documented procurement procedures, which reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to applicable federal statutes and the procurement requirement identified in 2 CFR Part 200. The procurement procedures must include the following: - Using the micro-purchase and small purchase methods only for procurements that meet the applicable criteria under 2 CFR sections 200.320(a) (1) and (2). Under the micro-purchase method, the aggregate dollar amount does not exceed $10,000 ($2,000 in the case of acquisition for construction subject to the Wage Rate Requirements (Davis-Bacon Act)). Small purchase procedures are used for purchases that exceed the micro-purchase amount but do not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold ($250,000). Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive quotations if the non-Federal entity considers the price to be reasonable (2 CFR section 200.320(a)). If small purchase procedures are used, price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources (2 CFR section 200.320(b)). - For acquisitions exceeding the simplified acquisition threshold, using one of the following procurement methods: the sealed bid method if the acquisition meets the criteria in 2 CFR section 200.320(b); the competitive proposals method under the conditions specified in 2 CFR section 200.320((b) (2); or the noncompetitive proposals method (i.e., solicit a proposal from only one source) but only when one or more of the circumstances are met, in accordance with 2 CFR section 200.320(c)). - Using Noncompetitive procurement only if one or more of the following circumstances apply: · The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold; · The item is available only from a single source; · The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; - The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non-Federal entity; or ∙ After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate PDA’s procurement policy also requires a verification that vendors and sub-recipient are not suspended or debarred by checking the website of the System for Award Management and documentation of such verification maintained by the Finance Office. Condition/Context While PDA has established a procurement policy, it does not fully conform to Federal law and the Uniform Guidance for the following reasons: - Micro purchase threshold is not explicitly defined, although it is mentioned that cost and price analysis shall be made and documented in connection with every procurement action above $5,000. - The policy does not clear provisions for maintaining detailed procurement records. Such records should include the rationale for the procurement method, the selection of contract type, the contractor selection or rejection process, and the basis for the contract price. - The simplified acquisition threshold is not defined and does not incorporate all relevant elements including sealed bids method. During our testing of 3 procurement transactions from a total of 20, we observed that, despite management's detailed historical background on each of the selected the necessary documentation evidencing compliance with PDA’s procurement standards was not retained. All the transactions tested were noncompetitive and thus single sourced. The total misstatement from these three transactions amounted to approximately $56,000 out of a total population of about $186,491. Furthermore, for these three vendors, which represented a 100% sample, we found no evidence of documentation for suspension and debarment verification. Although discussions with management suggested that all these transactions were properly conceived and evaluated at the time, there was no contemporaneous documentation to support this. Cause PDA’s procurement policy does not seem to have been reviewed against the Uniform Guidance for compliance. Internal controls over maintaining sufficient records to detail the history of procurement including noncompetitive justification and suspension and debarment verification were found to be insufficient. Effect The policy did not fully conformed to the Uniform Guidance resulting to noncompliance issues such as records not sufficient to detail the history of procurement transactions. Questioned Costs $186,491 Repeat Finding No. Recommendation We recommend PDA implement measures to ensure that its procurement policy reflect applicable state and local laws and regulations conforming to applicable federal statutes and requirement in 2 CFR part 200. Management should ensure procurement transactions are documented in such detail to evidence the method of procurement use and vendor verification for suspension and debarment.