Finding Text
Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Transportation
Federal Program Title: Formula Grants for Rural Area and Tribal Transit Program
AL Number: 20.509
Federal Award Identification Number and Year: MN-2021-036-01
Pass-Through Agency: Minnesota Department of Transportation
Pass-Through Number(s): 1051353
Award Period: 1/1/2023-12/31/2023
Type of Finding:
• Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance, Material Non-Compliance
Criteria or specific requirement: A documented review process ensures that the cost and activity was allowable. Also, supporting evidence should be maintained to ensure budgeted allocations charged to the grant are reviewed after-the-fact to ensure accurate amounts are charged to the grant.
Per CFR Part 200, (viii) Budget estimates (i.e., estimates determined before the services are performed) alone do not qualify as support for charges to Federal awards, but may be used for interim accounting purposes, provided that:
(A) the system for establishing the estimates produces reasonable approximations of the activity actually performed;
(B) significant changes in the corresponding work activity (as defined by the non-Federal entity's written policies) are identified and entered into the records in a timely manner. Short term (such as one or two months) fluctuation between workload categories need not be considered as long as the distribution of salaries and wages is reasonable over the longer term; and
(C) the non-Federal entity's system of internal controls includes processes to review after-the-fact interim charges made to a Federal awards based on budget estimates. All necessary adjustment must be made such that the final amount charged to the Federal award is accurate, allowable, and properly allocated.
Condition: During our testing of payroll disbursements we noted the Organization did not retain support to show after-the-fact review of budgeted payroll charged to the grant to show allocation charged to the grant was accurate.
During our testing of general disbursements, we noted the Organization was missing documentation to support the approval of a general disbursements by someone knowledgeable with the grant.
Questioned costs: $2,836
Context: One of the 40 allowable cost transactions did not have support for review of the costs charge to the grant. Five of the 40 allowable cost transactions selected for testing did not have adequate support to show the budgeted charge allocated to the grant was reviewed after-the-fact to support the allocation was accurate. Sampling was a statistically valid sample.
Cause: Management did not have documented approval of allowable costs by someone familiar with the grant. Management did not perform after-the-fact review of budgeted payroll costs allocated to the grant to ensure the costs were accurate and properly allocated.
Effect: Inaccurate amounts of funds could be charged to the grant.
Repeat finding: This is not a repeat finding.
Recommendation: The Organization should ensure proper documentation is retained to support the approval of allowable costs by someone knowledgeable of the grant and its guidelines. The Organization should reconcile the budgeted payroll allocation charged to the grant after-the-fact to actual work performed to ensure the allocation accurately reflected.
Views of responsible officials and planned corrective actions: There are no disagreements with the audit finding. The Organization will ensure moving forward that proper support is retained for allowable costs charged to the grant budgeted amounts are reconciled to after-the fact actual amounts.