partners in stewardship: nsf, monitoring, audit resolution, and you
DESCRIPTION
Partners in Stewardship: NSF, Monitoring, Audit Resolution, and You. March 10, 2013 New Orleans, Louisiana. Ask Early, Ask Often. Division of Institution & Award Support Office of Budget, Finance & Award Management Mary Santonastasso, Director - PowerPoint PPT PresentationTRANSCRIPT
Partners in Stewardship:NSF, Monitoring, Audit
Resolution, and You
March 10, 2013
New Orleans, Louisiana
Ask Early, Ask Often
Division of Institution & Award SupportOffice of Budget, Finance & Award Management
• Mary Santonastasso, Director
• Charles Zeigler, Senior Advisor, Cost Analysis and Audit Resolution Branch / DIAS
• NSF Fundamentals
• Award Monitoring and Business Assistance Program (AMBAP)
• Audit Resolution
• Discussion
Agenda
NSF Act of 1950• To promote the progress of science…”
• NSB (24) and 1 director, appointed by the president
• Encourage & develop a national policy for the promotion of basic research and education in math, physical, medical, biological, engineering, and other sciences
• Initiate & support basic scientific research
• Evaluate scientific research programs undertaken by agencies of the Federal Government
• Provide information for S&E policy formation
NSF Characteristics
• Independent Agency• Supports basic research
& education• Uses grant mechanism• Low overhead; highly
automated
• Discipline-based structure
• Cross-disciplinary mechanisms
• Use of Rotators/IPAs• National Science
Board
Mathematical& PhysicalSciences
(MPS)
Geosciences(GEO)
Engineering(ENG)
Computer &Information Science &
Engineering(CISE)
BiologicalSciences
(BIO)
Office of theInspector General
(OIG)
DirectorDeputy Director
National Science Board(NSB)
Office of Diversity & Inclusion
Office of the General Counsel
Office of International & Integrative Activities
Office of Legislative &Public Affairs
Social, Behavioral
& EconomicSciences
(SBE)
Education & Human
Resources(EHR)
Budget, Finance & Award
Management(BFA)
Information& Resource Management
(IRM)
NSF Organizational Chart
Chief Financial Officer & Director, BFA
Large Facilities Office
Budget DivisionDivision of Acquisition & Cooperative Support
Division of Institution & Award Support
Division of Grants & Agreements
Division of Financial Management
Budget Operations & Systems Branch
Program Analysis Branch
Contracts Branch
Cooperative Support Branch
Cost Analysis &Audit Resolution Branch
Policy Office
Systems Office
EHR/BIO/OIA Branch
MPS/GEO/SBE Branch
ENG/CISE/OCI/OPP/OISE Branch
Accounting Operations Branch
Cash Management Branch
Financial Systems Branch
Office of Budget, Finance & Award Management
• $7.373 billion• Consistent with
Administration’s commitment to doubling NSF and basic research agencies
• Emphasizes ways that fundamental research contributes to addressing national challenges
FY 2013 Budget Request
DOD, $71.2
HHS (NIH), $31.4
NASA, $9.6
DOE, $11.9
NSF, $5.9
USDA, $2.3DOC, $2.6
All Other, $5.9
Total R&D =$140.8 billion
FY 2013 Request: Total R&D by AgencyBudget Authority in Billions of Dollars
• $27.8 billion in total award funding
• 45,052 active awards– Standard and continuing
grants– Cooperative agreements– Graduate research
fellowships– Other awards
• 3,157 awardee Institutions– Universities / 4-year
colleges– Non-profit organizations– For-profit organizations– Community colleges– Other awardees
Award information as of June 14, 2012
86%
2.2%2.5%
<1%8%
Type of Awardee Organizations Universities / 4-year Colleges
Non-profit Institu-tions
For-profit Institutions
Community Col-leges
Other Awardees
63%
33%
1%<1% 2%
Type of Award InstrumentStandard Grants
Continuing Grants
Cooperative Agreements
Other Awards
Fellowships
NSF Award Portfolio
Risk
Asses
smen
t Monitoring
Activities
Feedback
Oversight and Monitoring
Evolution of NSF Post-Award Monitoring Processes
2002 2004 2010 2012
Formalized monitoring
program piloted
Created the Division ofInstitution and Award
Support
Adjusted risk assessmentbased on findings
Piloted virtual site visits
From Awards To Awardees
Risk-based Awardee Ranking
Prioritize monitoring on: - Highest risk points - Highest dollars - Number of awards
Risk-Based Award Ranking
Category A~7% of AwardeesRisk Points ≥ 32Total Obligation > $500K
42,192 AwardsRanked by risk points
Category B~23% of Awardees
16-32 Risk Points
Total Obligation > $500K
Category C~70% of Awardees
NSF not Cognizant
Risk Points < 16 or
Total Obligation < $500K
3,197 Awardees Ranked by risk points
1
Risk Adjustment Screens1. Institutional factors2. Prior monitoring activities
and results3. Award administration and
program feedback
Risk Adjustment Criteria
Awardee Risk Categories
NSF Award Portfolio
1 2 3
Annual Risk Assessment
Percentage of Portfolio
AdvancedMonitoring
BaselineMonitoring
Incr
easi
ng
ly f
ocu
sed
an
d t
arg
eted
Category
B *
Category A
* Category B selected for advanced monitoring on resource-available basis
Category C
Oversight and Monitoring
Desk Reviews
Federal Financial Report(FFR) Transaction Testing
Grants and Agreements Monitoring
Automated Report Screening
SiteVisits BSRs
Advanced Monitoring
• Desk Reviews – Assess general management environment, review selected accounting and financial management policies and procedures, and obtain financial information submitted by awardees
• Site Visits - Conduct onsite review of selected higher risk award administration areas and follow up on desk review results as needed
• BSRs – Combine desk and onsite reviews of large facility business systems to determine whether the operation of those facilities meets NSF’s expectations for business and administrative management
Site Visits and Business System Reviews
Site Visit Modules
Consultants
Cost Sharing
Final Project Reports
Fringe Benefits
Indirect Costs
Participant Support Costs
Procurement
Program or Award-Related Income
Property and Equipment
Special Terms and Conditions
Subawards and Subrecipient Monitoring
Time and Effort Records
Travel
Business System Reviews
General Management
Award Management
Budget and Planning
Financial Management
Financial Reporting
Human Resources
Procurement
Property and Equipment
Desk Reviews
General Management
Accounting and Financial Management
FFR Reconciliation
Keys to Success for Awardees
• Know requirements• Good Accounting Practices• Know the Scope of the Project• Document approvals and conversations between the
awardee and NSF
Ask Early and Ask Often!
The Future of AMBAP• Maintain comprehensive coverage • Further integrate post-award monitoring activities • Enhance management systems to better track
monitoring data • Develop knowledge base of lessons learned • Share best practices with other agencies • Virtual Site Visits through collaborative technologies
Virtual Site Visit Approach Use the risk assessment outputs to prioritize the pool of awardees
eligible for advanced monitoring activities Develop target number of virtual site visits based upon staff and
resource availability Select specific awardees for virtual site visits based upon the
following criteria:o Geographic Proximityo Awardee Amenabilityo Perceived Capabilityo Prior Monitoring Results
Implement the virtual site visit using a multi-phased approach:
19
Logistics and DocumentCollection
(Pre-Virtual Site Visit)
Virtual Site Visit
Analyses and Resolution
(Post-Virtual Site Visit)
Virtual Site VisitClose-Out
VSV Benefits
20
Resource Savings Travel and per diem costs Personnel time
Focused Interaction Clear agenda; more targeted discussion Document review in advance of meetings
Access to Resources Reach back capability at NSF Awardee access to internal information and experts WebEx to look directly at awardee systems/documents real time
Flexibility in Process Delaying the exit interview On the fly meeting date and time adjustments
VSV Challenges
Determining the Right Organization for a VSV It’s not for everyone Technology capability, straightforward issues, willingness
NSF and Awardee Relations Lack of onsite touch and feel, no hallway conversations Harder for NSF team to get close to the science Cannot put a name to a face as easily as onsite visit
NSF Team Bonding Lost opportunity for cross-division bonding
21
Pyramid of Monitoring
Audit Resolution
Overview• How Audits Originate
• Complementary Roles of NSF Management and the NSF OIG
• Types of Audits
• Audit Resolution Flow Chart
• Questioned vs. Sustained Costs FY 2012
• Audit Resolution Time Frame
How Audits Originate• NSF Office of Inspector General Annual Audit
Plan– NSF Office of Inspector General Staff– NSF Office of Inspector General contract audit firms
• A-133 Audits – Independent Auditors hired by the awardee
How NSF and the Inspector General Work Together• Office of the Inspector General = Independent Audit
Function
• NSF Management Resolves Audit Reports– NSF Management coordinates resolution with the auditee
and the Office of the Inspector General
• Agency Follow-up Official makes the final agency determination
Types of AuditsInternal• Performance and Programmatic Reviews• NSF Financial and Administrative Operations• NSF Financial Statement (Annually)
External• Pre-award• Incurred Costs• Compliance• Internal Controls
Audit Resolution Flowchart
Questioned vs. Sustained Costs FY 2012
Total Questioned Costs
Total Costs Sustained by NSF
$9,342,049 $4,080,970
Why the Difference?• Awardee provides additional/secondary documentation
to NSF that was not available to auditors• NSF makes equity determination based on demonstration
that the project goals have been accomplished• Professional judgment
Audit Resolution Time Frame• Resolution must occur within six months of
issuance to NSF Management• Audit reports unresolved after six months are
reported in the OIG Semi-annual Report to Congress– Complex– Large Amount of questioned costs– Circumstances beyond an institution’s control
Questions and Discussion
Background Materials
• Cost Analysis & Audit Resolution Branch: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/caar/index.jsp
• Division of Institution & Award Support: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/index.jsp
• General: http://www.nsf.gov
• Policy Office: http://www.nsf.gov/bfa/dias/policy/index.jsp
Online Resources
Current Advanced Monitoring Activities
34
Key Characteristics of AMBAP Monitoring Activities
Characteristics Desk Reviews Site Visits
Completed Annually • 110 - 150 • 26 - 30
Completion Time• Approximately 110 days and is conducted from a
remote location• Approximately 126 days, including 2-3 days on site
Staff Resources
• Contractor analysts gather information to conduct analysis and prepare the desk review workpapers and report
• NSF Team Lead reviews and approves desk review workpapers and report
• Team of 2 - 3 NSF staff gathers information, completes the on-site visit, and prepares the report
• The Site Visit team often relies heavily on desk review workpapers
Content Review Areas • Assess 3 - 4 Core Review Areas
• Assess 3 - 4 Core Review Areas or follow-up on desk review concerns
• Select 4 - 6 Targeted Review Areas, including mandatory review areas
Awardee
Engagement
Written Communications
• Gather and collect data via email or submitted awardee documentation
• Exchange correspondence with awardees to clarify responses to areas of concern or supporting documentation
• Gather and collect data via email or submitted awardee documentation
• Exchange correspondence with awardees to clarify responses to areas of concern or supporting documentation
Audio Communications • Discussion calls• Discussion calls• Face-to-face interactions
Visual Interactions
• N/A
• Engage face-to-face with awardees• Review award administration systems “in-person” • Observe non-verbal cues related to award administration
practices, such as institutional culture
Technology Considerations
35
Technology Considerations
Technology Options
DescriptionNSF-Supported Collaboration
ToolsTechnology Requirements Audio Visual
Desktop
Sharing
File Sharin
g
File Storag
e
Video-conferencing
• Collaborate and conduct small meetings utilizing TV screens, webcams, or desktop systems
Yes• Network(s) for the remote site(s) • Compatible equipment brand and internet transmission
speedYes Yes No No No
TelePresence• Provides high definition
videoconferencing which mimics an in-person meeting
Yes• Connection with an institution that has TelePresence
technology• Connection and integration with collaboration tools
Yes Yes No No No
WebEx
• Combines desktop sharing through a web browser with telephone and video conferencing capabilities
• Collaborate through whiteboards, PowerPoint, and desktop sharing
Yes
• Computer or wireless device with an Internet connection• Audio connection is available through the computer or
telephone • Webcam (optional)• Plug-ins may be required (i.e., WebEx)• Licenses may be required• Microsoft (MS) operating system or server may be required
(i.e., MS Lync)
Yes Yes Yes Yes
No
AdobeConnect
Yes
Microsoft Lync
Yes
Video in aBox
• Provides awardee institutions with basic IT collaboration tools (e.g., webcam and instructions to set-up)
No• Assessment of awardee institution’s technological
capabilities (e.g., internet speed, and operating system)Yes Yes No No No
SharePoint
• Allows for collaboration, document sharing, and file storage for NSF and non-NSF staff on an external facing intranet site
Yes• Utilizes internet browser• Requires prior approval from NSF to access external
SharePoint siteNo No No Yes Yes