FINDING 2022-003 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Procurement and Suspension and Debarment, Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): CY2021 Compliance Requirements: Activities Allowed or Unallowed, Allowable Costs/Cost Principles, Procurement and Suspension and Debarment, Subrecipient Monitoring Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context The City made a payment to a non-profit agency (non-profit) in the amount of $350,000. The City could not provide documentation to support whether the non-profit was considered by the City to be a beneficiary or a subrecipient of State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF). Documentation presented for audit to support the payment was an invoice from the non-profit and the City's approved Recovery Plan, neither of which included sufficient evidence to determine the relationship between the two entities. Due to the lack of sufficient audit evidence, we were unable to identify whether the payment was to a beneficiary or a subrecipient in order to perform the required corresponding audit procedures. If the non-profit had been determined by the City to be a subrecipient, the City would have been required to complete monitoring procedures designated for subrecipient relationships, including ensuring the non-profit complied with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award. In addition, the City did not perform procedures to verify if the non-profit was suspended or debarred or otherwise prohibited from participating in federal awards prior to issuing the payment. Furthermore, the City did not have policies or procedures as part of a proper internal control system in place to ensure payments made from SLFRF funds were free of conflicts of interest. A conflict of interest arises when an employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated, has a financial or other interest in or a tangible personal benefit from an entity considered for a payment. The Chief Executive Officer of the non-profit at the time that the payment of $350,000 was received was also the wife of the President of the Common Council. The President of the Common Council did not have a conflict-of-interest statement filed to disclose the circumstance, nor did the President of the Common Council abstain from voting on the City's plan for utilizing the SLFRF funding, which included the payment to the non-profit. In addition to the payment to the non-profit, the City paid premium pay, totaling $50,000, to ten exempt employees whose earnings exceeded the 150 percent of the average annual wage threshold. The City was required to notify the U.S. Department of the Treasury if the employees were classified as exempt or if the employees' wages were over the threshold. The City did not submit a reasoning for the premium pay payments. We consider the $400,000 paid to the non-profit and the employees to be questioned costs. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were isolated to the payments as described above. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) 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). . . ." 31 CFR 35.6(b) states in part: "Responding to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts. A recipient may use funds to respond to the public health emergency or its negative economic impacts if the use meets the criteria provided in paragraph (b)(1) of this section or is enumerated in paragraph (b)(3) of this section; . . . (1) Identifying eligible responses to the public health emergency or it negative impacts. (i) A program, service, or capital expenditure is eligible under this paragraph (b)(1) if a recipient identifies a harm or impact to a beneficiary or class of beneficiaries caused or exacerbated by the public health emergency or its negative impacts and the program, service, or capital expenditure responds to such harm. . . ." 2 CFR 200.403 states in part: "Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. . . . (g) be adequately documented. . . ." 31 CFR 35.3 states in part: ". . . Obligation means an order placed for property and services and entering into contracts, subawards, and similar transactions that require payment. . . ." Federal Register, Vol. 87, No.18, page 4400, states in part: ". . . as part of accepting the Award Terms and Conditions for SLFRF, each recipient agreed to maintain a conflict-of-interest policy consistent with 2 CFR 200.318(c) that is applicable to all activities funded with the SLFRF award. This award term requires recipients and subrecipients to report to Treasury or the pass-through agency, as appropriate, any potential conflict of interest related to the award funds per 2 CFR 200.112. . . ." 2 CFR 200.112 states: "The Federal awarding agency must establish conflict of interest policies for Federal awards. The non-Federal entity must disclose in writing any potential conflict of interest to the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity in accordance with applicable Federal awarding agency policy." 2 CFR 200.318(c)(1) states in part: "The non-Federal entity must maintain written standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest and governing actions of its employees engaged in the selection, award and administration of contracts. No employee, officer, or agent may participate in the selection, award, or administration of a contract supported by a Federal award if he or she has a real or apparent conflict of interest. Such a conflict of interest would arise when the employee, officer, or agent, any member of his or her immediate family, his or her partner, or an organization which employs or is about to employ any of the parties indicated herein, has a financial or other interest in or a tangible personal benefit from a firm considered for a contract. . . ." Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds: Overview of the Final Rule, pages 35-36, states in part: "The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds may be used to provide premium pay to eligible workers performing essential work during the pandemic. Premium pay may be awarded to eligible workers up to $13 per hour. Premium pay must be in addition to wages or remuneration (i.e., compensation) the eligible worker otherwise receives. Premium pay may not exceed $25,000 for any single worker during the program. . . . 3. Confirm that the premium pay 'responds to' workers performing essential work during the COVID-19 public health emergency. Under the final rule, which broadened the share of eligible workers who can receive premium pay without a written justification, recipients may meet this requirement in one of three ways: ? Eligible worker receiving premium pay is earning (with the premium included) at or below 150 percent of their residing state or county's average annual wage for all occupations, as defined by the Bureau of Labor Statistics' Occupational Employment and Wage Statistics, whichever is higher, on an annual basis; or ? Eligible worker receiving premium pay is not exempt from the Fair Labor Standards Act overtime provisions; or ? If a worker does not meet either of the above requirements, the recipient must submit written justification to Treasury detailing how the premium pay is otherwise responsive to workers performing essential work during the public health emergency. This may include a description of the essential worker's duties, health, or financial risks faced due to COVID-19, and why the recipient determined that the premium pay was responsive. Treasury anticipates that recipients will easily be able to satisfy the justification requirement for front-line workers, like nurses and hospital staff. . . ." Cause The system of internal controls as established by management of the City was not properly designed, nor implemented. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect City management's views of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. These policies and procedures should include the preparation and retention of appropriate documentation to support a determination of the relationship with the non-profit. Additionally, policies and procedures were not in place to ensure conflict-of-interest statements or written justification for the premium pay paid to employees were filed as required. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result of the failure to identify, as well as document the relationship with the nonprofit, the City's compliance with the applicable compliance requirements could not be verified. If the City had determined the non-profit to be a subrecipient, the City would have been responsible for monitoring the non-profit, and additional audit procedures related to subrecipient monitoring would have been required. The failure to file a conflict-of-interest statement and abstain from voting on matters related to the SLFRF funds caused the payment to the non-profit to be a questioned cost of the federal award. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. Questioned Costs Known questioned costs in the amount of $400,000 were identified as noted in the Condition and Context. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City design and implement a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure adequate supporting documentation is retained to be presented for audit and that appropriate conflict-of-interest statements are filed. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.