EIN: 016000023
UEI: NAC3GQKB9G36
Audited by: Runyon Kersteen Ouellette
Oversight agency: 21 [Department of the Treasury]
View federal awards & risk assessment →
Data as of August 31, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on August 20, 2025. Under 2 CFR 200.521(d), a pass-through entity that provided federal funds to this organization for this audit period must issue a management decision on these findings by February 20, 2026 (194 days ago).
What is a management decision? →We were unable to reconcile the City’s expenditures, as reported in their accounting system, with the March 31, 2023 Project and Expenditure Report. Actual expenditures for the year ending March 31, 2023 were $1,644,557 more than were reported to the Treasury Department. Cumulative expenditures were $276,606 less than were reported to the Treasury Department. Cause: We were unable to obtain the supporting documentation used by the City in their preparation of the Project and Expenditure Report to determine why there was such a large, undetected discrepancy. Inadequate grant management resources, staff turnover in the Finance Department, and inadequate review procedures have resulted in inaccurate reporting. Effect: Failure to complete reports accurately and maintain proper supporting documentation for amounts reported could skew the financial position of the program and related projects. As such, measurement of results and management decisions for future projects could be based on inaccurate information. Recommendation: We recommend the City review their grant management controls to ensure that supporting documentation for grant reporting is maintained in a shared network file, available to all relevant users, and that reports and supporting documentation are reviewed and approved by a knowledgeable grant manager prior to submission to the Department of Treasury. Subsequent reallocation of expenditures that require report corrections should be made in a timely manner in the Treasury’s reporting portal. Known Questioned Costs: None Likely Questioned Costs: None
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2023-008 U.S. Department of Treasury, For the Period July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023, Assistance Listing #21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Criteria: The Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) Grant requires an annual Project and Expenditure Report be submitted within 30 days of the year ending March 31, 2023 to the Department of the Treasury. The Project and Expenditure Report should be supported by the City’s financial records and should contain an accurate record of grant funds obligated and expended by budgeted project. Condition: We were unable to reconcile the City’s expenditures, as reported in their accounting system, with the March 31, 2023 Project and Expenditure Report. Actual expenditures for the year ending March 31, 2023 were $1,644,557 more than were reported to the Treasury Department. Cumulative expenditures were $276,606 less than were reported to the Treasury Department. Cause: We were unable to obtain the supporting documentation used by the City in their preparation of the Project and Expenditure Report to determine why there was such a large, undetected discrepancy. Inadequate grant management resources, staff turnover in the Finance Department, and inadequate review procedures have resulted in inaccurate reporting. Effect: Failure to complete reports accurately and maintain proper supporting documentation for amounts reported could skew the financial position of the program and related projects. As such, measurement of results and management decisions for future projects could be based on inaccurate information. Recommendation: We recommend the City review their grant management controls to ensure that supporting documentation for grant reporting is maintained in a shared network file, available to all relevant users, and that reports and supporting documentation are reviewed and approved by a knowledgeable grant manager prior to submission to the Department of Treasury. Subsequent reallocation of expenditures that require report corrections should be made in a timely manner in the Treasury’s reporting portal. Known Questioned Costs: None Likely Questioned Costs: None
Management’s Response and Corrective Action Plan: The City has implemented a procedure requiring the project manager to prepare required finance-based grant reports in conjunction with the finance director. The finance director must approve the required grant report before the project manager is authorized to submit. The procedure includes timelines and authorizations requiring all grants to be entered into the City’s financial management software suite to ensure complete and timely project monitoring. All users have access to the financial software and have real-time access to all data.
2022-001
During our testing of grant expenditures, we found one expenditure totaling $140,320 that was reported in the wrong period. We also found a credit of $27,119 that was unrelated to the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) grant and improperly reduced grant expenditures. The initial SEFA overstated expenditures by $113,201 for the SLFRF grant. The client has made adjustments to the SEFA to correct the errors. Cause: Improper accounting cutoff procedures and improper transaction coding caused the initial SEFA to be incorrect. Effect: The SEFA initially overstated program expenditures by $113,201. Recommendation: We recommend regular review of Federal grant expenditure accounts by a grant manager knowledgeable of the program to ensure proper year end cutoff and proper expense and revenue coding. Known Questioned Costs: None Likely Questioned Costs: None
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2023-009 U.S. Department of Treasury, For the Period July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023, Assistance Listing #21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 200.510 Financial Statements, grant recipients are required to prepare a Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards (SEFA) for the period covered by the recipient’s financial statements. The City of Biddeford prepares their SEFA on the accrual basis of accounting. Condition: During our testing of grant expenditures, we found one expenditure totaling $140,320 that was reported in the wrong period. We also found a credit of $27,119 that was unrelated to the State and Local Fiscal Recovery Fund (SLFRF) grant and improperly reduced grant expenditures. The initial SEFA overstated expenditures by $113,201 for the SLFRF grant. The client has made adjustments to the SEFA to correct the errors. Cause: Improper accounting cutoff procedures and improper transaction coding caused the initial SEFA to be incorrect. Effect: The SEFA initially overstated program expenditures by $113,201. Recommendation: We recommend regular review of Federal grant expenditure accounts by a grant manager knowledgeable of the program to ensure proper year end cutoff and proper expense and revenue coding. Known Questioned Costs: None Likely Questioned Costs: None
Management’s Response and Corrective Action Plan: Grant review is included within the month-end close procedure referenced in the response to 2023-001. The procedure includes defined roles and responsibilities by position.
2022-001
During our testing of grant expenditures, we found no evidence the City verified the contractor was not suspended or debarred prior to entering into covered transactions. Cause: The City did not have a procedure in place to ensure compliance with suspension and debarment requirements prior to contracting with a vendor. Effect: The vendor could have been suspended or debarred from entering into a contract funded by Federal grants. Noncompliance can result in the grantor withholding Federal funds for the program. Recommendation: We recommend management review the requirements under 2 CFR part 180 and develop procedures to add to their procurement ordinance to ensure one of the three verifications is present prior to entering into a covered transaction under a Federal grant award. Known Questioned Costs: None Likely Questioned Costs: None
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2023-010 U.S. Department of Treasury, For the Period July 1, 2022 through June 30, 2023, Assistance Listing #21.027 Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Criteria: In accordance with 2 CFR 180 OMB Guidelines to Agencies on Government-Wide Debarment and Suspension, non-Federal entities are prohibited from contracting with parties that are suspended or debarred when a covered transaction is expected to equal or exceed $25,000 or meet certain other criteria specified in 2 CFR 180.220. The non-Federal entity must verify the contractor is not suspended or debarred by (1) checking the System for Award Management (SAM) exclusions maintained by the General Services Administration at SAM.gov, (2) collecting a certification from the entity, or (3) adding a clause or condition to the contract with that entity. Condition: During our testing of grant expenditures, we found no evidence the City verified the contractor was not suspended or debarred prior to entering into covered transactions. Cause: The City did not have a procedure in place to ensure compliance with suspension and debarment requirements prior to contracting with a vendor. Effect: The vendor could have been suspended or debarred from entering into a contract funded by Federal grants. Noncompliance can result in the grantor withholding Federal funds for the program. Recommendation: We recommend management review the requirements under 2 CFR part 180 and develop procedures to add to their procurement ordinance to ensure one of the three verifications is present prior to entering into a covered transaction under a Federal grant award. Known Questioned Costs: None Likely Questioned Costs: None
Management’s Response and Corrective Action Plan: The City implemented a grant management policy specific to verification of contractor suspension, debarment, or pending debarment in accordance with the provisions of 2 CFR Part 180. The policy provides staff with three option for compliance – perform a search and verification through Sam.gov, request a contractor certification upon award, and including a clause in the bid documents and final contract whereas the contractor’s signature affirms compliance. The latter is the preferred method, however the circumstances specific to each grant may be varied. The policy provides flexibility while ensuring compliance. The policy is currently in effect.
2022-001
FAC accepted this audit on May 29, 2023 — management decision was due November 29, 2023.
The 2022 first quarter Project and Expenditure Report activity did not agree with the City?s accounting records. Criteria: Filling accurate Project and Expenditure Reports is required to ensure the Department of Treasury has accurate financial information. Cause: Errors caused activity to be incorrectly reported. Effect: If grant information is not reported accurately to the federal oversight agency it could jeopardize future grant funding. Recommendation: We recommend implementing controls to ensure required reports are filed accurately. Questioned Costs: None
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2022-002 ? U.S. Department of Treasury, For the Period July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022, Assistance Listing #21.027 American Rescue Plan Act Statement of Condition: The 2022 first quarter Project and Expenditure Report activity did not agree with the City?s accounting records. Criteria: Filling accurate Project and Expenditure Reports is required to ensure the Department of Treasury has accurate financial information. Cause: Errors caused activity to be incorrectly reported. Effect: If grant information is not reported accurately to the federal oversight agency it could jeopardize future grant funding. Recommendation: We recommend implementing controls to ensure required reports are filed accurately. Questioned Costs: None
Management Response/Corrective Action Plan: When the City originally received the assistance from the American Rescue Plan Act, they intended to use part of that money to fund bonus pay to municipal workers who worked during the COVID crisis. Rather than only giving bonuses to public safety workers, Council voted that it was appropriate to compensate any employee who worked during a certain period of time out of City general funds. However, prior to the first report coming due, the guidelines were updated to include the standard allowance of up to $10 million of the allocation as Revenue Replacement. Revenue Replacement may fund any general government service, including salaries and fringe benefits, with only a few exceptions for debt service and pension contributions. Management elected at this time to elect to use the standard allowance. As noted above, management had already determined that they would expend ARPA funds for public safety workers (i.e., police and fire, and certain clerical staff who came back to work in person prior to the emergency being lifted), and these salaries and benefits were included in the Revenue Replacement on the March, 2022 report. It was not until June 21, 2022 that management transferred the bonus pay for the remaining employees; therefore, management did not consider these funds obligated or expended to the grant until they were transferred.
FAC accepted this audit on June 1, 2022 — management decision was due December 1, 2022.
The City currently does not have written procedures as required by the Uniform Guidance as specified in the criteria. Cause: Although the City has adequate procedures in place to prevent non-compliance for most of its Federal grants, those procedures have not been documented. Effect: Without written procedures, the City runs the risk of non-compliance for Federal grants. Known Questioned Costs: None Likely Questioned Costs: None Recommendations: The City should review its Federal grants and determine which grants need specific written procedures to meet the Uniform Guidance requirements.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2021-001 ? Uniform Guidance Written Policies Criteria: Under the Uniform Guidance ?200.302 Financial Management, the non-Federal entity must provide written procedures to implement the requirements of ?200.305 (Federal payment), and written procedures for determining the allowability of costs in accordance with subpart E of the Uniform Guidance and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Condition: The City currently does not have written procedures as required by the Uniform Guidance as specified in the criteria. Cause: Although the City has adequate procedures in place to prevent non-compliance for most of its Federal grants, those procedures have not been documented. Effect: Without written procedures, the City runs the risk of non-compliance for Federal grants. Known Questioned Costs: None Likely Questioned Costs: None Recommendations: The City should review its Federal grants and determine which grants need specific written procedures to meet the Uniform Guidance requirements.
Management response/corrective action: As part of her initial and continuing review of City internal policies and procedures, the Finance Director is looking at what is written, and how those written procedures need to be updated to include language to be in compliance with the Uniform Guidance where necessary. Person responsible for corrective action of City comments: Nichole Wood, Finance Director, (207) 284-9333 ext 4147 Anticipated completion date: Corrective action will be complete within 12 months.
FAC accepted this audit on March 14, 2021 — management decision was due September 14, 2021.
FAC accepted this audit on January 27, 2020 — management decision was due July 27, 2020.
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) revised regulations applicable to federally funded programs. The new regulations are contained in Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). The Uniform Guidance replaced OMB Circulars A-133, A-87, and A-110 and incorporates new requirements for grant recipients. The Uniform Guidance includes not only protocols for program management and administration, but also updates compliance regulations for federal awards. Currently the City and School Department do not have a formal written procurement policy that incorporates all provisions of the Uniform Guidance procurement standards. Cause: The City and School Department have not adopted a procurement policy that covers all aspects required by the Uniform Guidance. However, during our testing of procurement over federal expenditures, we did not notate any violations of the Uniform Guidance procurement standards. Effect: Items required by the Uniform Guidance procurement standards that are not currently addressed in the City and School Department?s procurement policy are as follows: ? Contracting with small and minority businesses, women?s business enterprises, and labor surplus area firms ? Bonding requirements ? Contract provisions ? Subrecipient and contractor determinations Recommendation: We recommend that management review the applicable provisions of the Uniform Guidance procurement standards and update the City and School Department?s procurement policies appropriately. This would include adding any missing components to the City and School Department?s current procurement policy and updating definitions of types of procurement (i.e., micro-purchases, small purchases, and small acquisition threshold), to match the language used in the Uniform Guidance procurement standards.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2019-001 ? Uniform Guidance Procurement Standards Criteria: One of the more significant provisions of the Uniform Guidance that affects the City and School Department is the procurement standards under 2 CFR sections 200.318 through 200.326. Under the new procurement standards, the City and School Department are required to have a documented purchasing policy, which at a minimum, incorporates the provisions of the Uniform Guidance. Statement of Condition: The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) revised regulations applicable to federally funded programs. The new regulations are contained in Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards (Uniform Guidance). The Uniform Guidance replaced OMB Circulars A-133, A-87, and A-110 and incorporates new requirements for grant recipients. The Uniform Guidance includes not only protocols for program management and administration, but also updates compliance regulations for federal awards. Currently the City and School Department do not have a formal written procurement policy that incorporates all provisions of the Uniform Guidance procurement standards. Cause: The City and School Department have not adopted a procurement policy that covers all aspects required by the Uniform Guidance. However, during our testing of procurement over federal expenditures, we did not notate any violations of the Uniform Guidance procurement standards. Effect: Items required by the Uniform Guidance procurement standards that are not currently addressed in the City and School Department?s procurement policy are as follows: ? Contracting with small and minority businesses, women?s business enterprises, and labor surplus area firms ? Bonding requirements ? Contract provisions ? Subrecipient and contractor determinations Recommendation: We recommend that management review the applicable provisions of the Uniform Guidance procurement standards and update the City and School Department?s procurement policies appropriately. This would include adding any missing components to the City and School Department?s current procurement policy and updating definitions of types of procurement (i.e., micro-purchases, small purchases, and small acquisition threshold), to match the language used in the Uniform Guidance procurement standards.
Management response/corrective action plan: The policy was in draft form throughout fiscal year 2019 however, it was not officially approved. We subsequently approved and started implementing the policy in early fiscal year 2020.
FAC accepted this audit on January 30, 2019 — management decision was due July 30, 2019.
FAC accepted this audit on January 31, 2018 — management decision was due July 31, 2018.
FAC accepted this audit on January 12, 2017 — management decision was due July 12, 2017.
Data source: This information comes from the Federal Audit Clearinghouse, the official repository of Single Audit data. All data is public domain. Verify this organization's audit history at fac.gov.
Browse other Single Audit organizations in Maine →
Track your findings and corrective action plans across audit cycles.
Start tracking findings →Monitor subrecipient audit findings and filing records.
Start monitoring →© 2026 Single Audit Intelligence. All data is public domain.
