how to prepare for a federal audit or monitoring visit to prepare for a federal audit or monitoring...
TRANSCRIPT
How to Prepare for a Federal Audit or Monitoring Visit
Tiffany R Winters, Esq.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
May 2014
Ripped from the Headlines
• Former Secretary of a SEA found guilty of stealing federal funds used for financing political campaigns through kickbacks from contracts with vendors.
• Sentenced to 12 years in prison
2
Ripped from the Headlines • Former State Superintendent indicted by a
federal grand jury for embezzling more than $600,000 in federal education funds for her campaign for governor and plastic surgery.
• Sentenced to 8 years in prison, fined $414,000, 3 years probation and 100 community service hours upon release
3
Non-Compliance Findings
Audit
1. OIG Audit
2. A-133 Audit
Monitoring
3.Federal
4.State
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
4
Preparation
•Key to successful outcome
•Self assessment - critical
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
5
Self Assessment
• Identify potential trouble spots
• Review significant violations
from other processes
• Review prior findings
• Conduct self assessment
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
6
Review of 27 OIG Audit Reports $1,398,564 unallowable personnel costs
Employee compensation charged to grants in which the employee did not work on
$826,183 unallowable non-personnel costs
Unnecessary or unreasonable to carry out the grant or not-for-program purposes
$810,055 unallowable non-personnel costs
Contracts were: missing required elements; unfulfilled; not approved; or included expenditures that exceeded the contract amounts
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
7
Review of 27 OIG Audit Reports (cont.) • $66,666,155 inadequately documented personnel costs
• Time and effort documentation (both semi-annual certifications and PARs) were missing, incomplete, inaccurate, or untimely
• $16,010,550 inadequately documented non-personnel costs
• Missing or inaccurate supporting documentation
• $2,693,004 in lost or unaccounted for property
• Improper inventory control systems
• $2,504,617 unallowable supplanting of Federal grant funds
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
8
Review of 27 OIG Audit Reports (cont.)
• Pervasive non-compliance issues
• Inadequate policies and procedures (34 times)
• No policies and procedures (15 times)
• Not understanding the regulations and guidance (10 times)
• Policies in place, but not followed (5 times)
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
9
Audit violations deemed “significant” by the U.S. Department of Education
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
10
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
11
1. Time Distribution 2. MOE 3. Supplement Not
Supplant 4. Unallowable Expenses 5. Procurement
Irregularity 6. Ineligible Students 7. Lack of Accountability
for Equipment/Materials
8. Lack of Appropriate Record Keeping
9. Record Retention Problems
10.Late or No Submission of Required Reports, Inaccuracies, Inconsistence
11.Audits of Subrecipient Unresolved
12.Lack of Subrecipient Monitoring
13.Drawdown before funds are needed or more than 90 days after the end of funding period
14.Large Carryover Balances 15.Lack of valid, reliable or
complete performance data
Evaluate Areas to be Examined
1. OIG Audit
• Notice of Audit: Correspondence
2. A-133 Audit
• Prior Audits (Findings)
• A-133 Compliance Supplement
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
12
Evaluate Areas to be Examined (cont.)
3. Monitoring
• ESEA Flexibility Monitoring; SASA Guide
• CrEAG; RDA
• Perkins IV Checksheets
• Request for documents
Make a separate set of copies of all documents provided to ED
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
13
Corrective Action Plan
Critical – in place at time of visit – even if implementation
•Specific Measurable Objectives
•Timelines
•Clear Lines of Responsibility
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
15
Audit Records
• Can the auditee refuse to provide the auditors with requested documents? • GEPA 20 USC 1232(f) requires that ED and
its representatives (which arguably includes A-133 auditors) “shall have access, for the purpose of audit examination, to any records maintained by a recipient that may be related, or pertinent to, grants”
• EDGAR 80.26(b)(5) also indicates audit access to records without qualifiers. • If requested records are not provided, likely
receive an audit limitation.
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
18
Communication with Staff
• Formal (governmental) inquiry
•Provide any information within personal knowledge
• No guessing
• No speculation
•No time to settle grudges
•No gossip
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
19
Identify Key Staff (Audit Committee)
•Audit Manager:
•Key contact for all questions, interview arrangements, documents requests, logistical arrangements
•Agency Leadership:
• Entrance, exit conference
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
20
Identify Key Staff (Audit Committee) • Relevant Staff: • Assure staff are prepared for interview • Subject matter awareness
• Terminology/Definitions • Time and Effort • Necessary and Reasonable • Inventory
• Familiarity with job description • Familiarity with prior problem areas • Familiarity with likely areas of inquiry
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
21
The Visit
• Entrance Conference • Leadership • Set positive tone
• Audit Manager • Review process/logistics • Request all interview requests go through
manager • Request periodic updates (especially
problem areas) • Do not wait for exit conference
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
22
The Visit
•Keep extra copy of all documents supplied!!!
•Debrief staff after interviews
•Clear up misunderstandings
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
23
Exit Conference
•Press for specifics • If issues: •Documents requested? • List and send
•Potential noncompliance findings •Review carefully • If confirmed, develop corrective
actions proactively
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
24
Next Steps
•OIG Audit, A-133 Audit
•Draft Audit Report
•Final Audit Report
•Final determination (ED, State Agency)
•Respond carefully at each level
•Problems always easier to resolve at earliest level
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
25
For example: Alabama Audit
Cash Management Findings
• Draft Audit Report - October 2011
• Alabama Response: Policies and procedures, internal controls
• Final Audit Report – February 2012
• Alabama Response: Disagreed with some findings, but addressed OIG concerns; acknowledged Federal requirements; implemented corrective actions.
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
26
For example: Alabama Audit
“With all these facts and circumstances, we find that the State has been willing to implement and to also require the prime recipients and subrecipients to implement corrective action that complies with the draw down, transfer, disbursement and maintenance of excess Federal grant funds and the internal control requirements applicable to Federal grant funds. Therefore, we do not request the State, prime recipients, or subrecipients to refund any of the Federal grant funds they have received . . . It is our determination that this finding is resolved.”
• Program Determination Letter – May 2013
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
27
Next Steps
•ED can:
•Accept finding as is
•Accept finding but reduce or eliminate liability
•Reject finding
• Letter of final audit determination • Establishes prima facie case
• 34 CFR 81.34
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
28
Review by ED
• ED accepts finding with $ liability
•Appeal to Office of Hearings and Appeals (OHA), 34 CFR 81.37
•Administrative Law Judges (ALJs) are independent
•Caution –
• Time limits
•Other Rules of Procedure for Appeals
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
29
Common Defenses
•Harm to the Federal interest
•Equitable offset
•Statute of limitations
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
32
Harm to the Federal Interest 34 CFR 81.32 and Appendix
• “A recipient that made an unallowable expenditure or otherwise failed to account properly for funds shall return an amount that is proportional to the extent of the harm its violation caused to an identifiable Federal interest associated with the program . . . ”
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
33
Harm – Always
• Ineligible Beneficiaries
•Example: IDEA, Part B program funds for students without a disability
•Unauthorized activities
• Example: Migrant funds used for local agency staff to attend conference unrelated to Migrant program
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
34
Harm - Always (cont.)
• Fiscal • Set-aside
• Example: SEA spends more than 10% on Perkins state leadership
• MOE
• Comparability
• Supplanting
• Excess cost
• Matching
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
35
Possible No Harm
May argue “no harm” if: •Did not obtain required prior
approval •Missing required time and effort
documentation •Missing evidence of procurement
Caution: ED takes more limited view – may require litigation
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
36
ALJ Decisions - Reconstruction
• Application of the New York State Department of Education, No. 90-70-R (April 21, 1994)
• After-the-fact affidavits and other pertinent documentation are admissible as evidence.
• Consolidated Appeals of the Florida Department of Education, Nos. 29(293)88 & 33(297)88 (June 26, 1990)
• Accepted affidavits completed by supervisors years later as credible and useful evidence.
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
37
Equitable Offset
In effect, an equitable offset permits the substitution of any costs paid under the grant that are subsequently disallowed with otherwise allowable expenditures paid by the grantee, and thereby reduces or eliminates a liability due to ED.
Application of Pittsburg Pre-School Community Council, Docket
No 09-20-R (May 16, 2012)
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
38
Statute of Limitations
No recipient under an applicable program shall be liable to return funds which were expended in a manner not authorized by law more than 5 years before the recipient received written notice of a preliminary departmental decision.
• 20 USC 1234a(k); 34 CFR 81.31(c)
• For purposes of measuring the statute of limitations, funds are “expended” as of the date of obligation.
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
39
Resolution Strategies
•CAROI
•Compromise
•Settlement
•Litigation B
rust
ein
& M
anas
evit
, PLL
C
40
Monitoring Findings
•Opportunity to Respond
•Generally, Corrective Actions
•No Liability
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
41
Changes Under Omni Circular?
• 200.513: The federal awarding agency must use cooperative audit resolution to improve federal program outcomes
• Cooperative Audit Resolution: means the use of audit follow-up techniques which promote prompt corrective action by improving communication, fostering collaboration, promoting trust and developing an understanding between the Federal agency and non-Federal entity (200.25).
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
42
Omni Circular Changes
• The auditor must report (for major programs):
• Significant deficiencies and material weaknesses in internal controls
• Significant instances of abuse
• Material noncompliance
• Known questioned costs > $25,000
• Auditor will not normally find questioned costs for a program that is not audited as a “major program”
• NEW: But if auditor becomes aware of questioned costs > $25,000 for non-major program, must report
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
43
Omni Circular Changes
• Possible Elimination of 7 Compliance Requirements: • Davis-Bacon Act;
• Equipment and Real Property Management;
• Level of Effort, Earmarking;
• Period of Availability of Federal Funds (except where tested to verify allowable/ unallowable costs);
• Procurement, Suspension and Debarment;
• Program Income; and
• Real Property Acquisition Relocation Assistance.
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
44
Disclaimer
This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice. Attendance at the presentation or later review of these printed materials does not create an attorney-client relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC. You should not take any action based upon any information in this presentation without first consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular circumstances.
Bru
stei
n &
Man
asev
it, P
LLC
46