EIN: 061301995
UEI: DGXPEQ7GSVJ5
Audited by: Geel LLP
Oversight agency: 14 [Department of Housing and Urban Development]
View federal awards & risk assessment →
Data as of September 14, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on October 31, 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 May 1, 2026 (137 days ago).
What is a management decision? →FAC accepted this audit on November 18, 2024 — management decision was due May 18, 2025.
FAC accepted this audit on November 9, 2023 — management decision was due May 9, 2024.
FAC accepted this audit on November 29, 2022 — management decision was due May 29, 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on January 6, 2022 — management decision was due July 6, 2022.
FAC accepted this audit on January 18, 2021 — management decision was due July 18, 2021.
FAC accepted this audit on November 19, 2019 — management decision was due May 19, 2020.
2019-001 ? Procurement, Suspension and Debarment U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development CFDA #: 14.850 ? Public and Indian Housing Material Weakness CRITERIA For small purchases in excess of $3,500.00 but not exceeding $100,000, quotes from no less than three (3) offerors shall be solicited. Said quotes may be obtained orally, by telephone, or in writing as allowed by State or local laws. Contracts for construction or services must be in writing. Award shall be made to the qualified offeror whose quote provides the lowest price. If the award is to be made for reasons other than the lowest price, written documentation describing all of the specified factors to be taken into account must be included in the solicitation. (Norwich Housing Authority Procurement Policy, Section IV, paragraph B)2019-001 ? Procurement, Suspension and Debarment CONDITION We examined a sample of goods and services purchased during fiscal year 2019. We noted four instances by not having a written contract for construction related services and four instances in which written documentation describing all the specified factors in awarding of a solicitation was not adequately documented. CAUSE Due to the timing of when the Authority implemented its corrective action, the Authority?s system of internal controls over procurement was not effective at identifying the need for competitive procurement in instances where frequently recurring transactions resulted in aggregate purchases in excess of competitive procurement thresholds. EFFECT The Authority has not ensured that it is receiving the most competitive prices or rates for services that have been procured, which may have resulted in unnecessary additional costs to the Authority. QUESTIONED COSTS We have identified known questioned costs for purchases which were not competitively procured and directly charged to the Public and Indian Housing Program of $53,175 representing the aggregate expenditures to the four separate vendors. CONTEXT We selected a sample of eight vendors from a population of eighty vendors whose aggregate payments exceed the micro purchase threshold. This was not a statistically valid sample. REPEAT FINDING This finding is repeated from finding 2018-001. RECOMMENDATION The Authority should continue with their corrective action which was started to be implemented in fiscal year 2019.AUDITEE?S RESPONSE AND PLANNED CORRECTIVE ACTION See Corrective Action Plan.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2019-001 ? Procurement, Suspension and Debarment U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development CFDA #: 14.850 ? Public and Indian Housing Material Weakness CRITERIA For small purchases in excess of $3,500.00 but not exceeding $100,000, quotes from no less than three (3) offerors shall be solicited. Said quotes may be obtained orally, by telephone, or in writing as allowed by State or local laws. Contracts for construction or services must be in writing. Award shall be made to the qualified offeror whose quote provides the lowest price. If the award is to be made for reasons other than the lowest price, written documentation describing all of the specified factors to be taken into account must be included in the solicitation. (Norwich Housing Authority Procurement Policy, Section IV, paragraph B)2019-001 ? Procurement, Suspension and Debarment CONDITION We examined a sample of goods and services purchased during fiscal year 2019. We noted four instances by not having a written contract for construction related services and four instances in which written documentation describing all the specified factors in awarding of a solicitation was not adequately documented. CAUSE Due to the timing of when the Authority implemented its corrective action, the Authority?s system of internal controls over procurement was not effective at identifying the need for competitive procurement in instances where frequently recurring transactions resulted in aggregate purchases in excess of competitive procurement thresholds. EFFECT The Authority has not ensured that it is receiving the most competitive prices or rates for services that have been procured, which may have resulted in unnecessary additional costs to the Authority. QUESTIONED COSTS We have identified known questioned costs for purchases which were not competitively procured and directly charged to the Public and Indian Housing Program of $53,175 representing the aggregate expenditures to the four separate vendors. CONTEXT We selected a sample of eight vendors from a population of eighty vendors whose aggregate payments exceed the micro purchase threshold. This was not a statistically valid sample. REPEAT FINDING This finding is repeated from finding 2018-001. RECOMMENDATION The Authority should continue with their corrective action which was started to be implemented in fiscal year 2019.AUDITEE?S RESPONSE AND PLANNED CORRECTIVE ACTION See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding 2019-001 - Procurement , Suspension , Debarment The Authority has updated its procurement policy. This updated policy was adopted by the Board at its meeting held on September 12, 2018 and revised by the Board at its meeting held on April 10, 2019. The Executive Director and staff have been implementing the procurement policy. A list of the services to be procured has been compiled. The Modernization Coordinator had solicited quotes for On-Call Plum bing/HYAC Services , Electrician Services and Painting Services in accordance with the Procurement Policy. The results of the solicitation were brought to the Board at its March 13, 2019 meetin g for its consideration and approval. A monthly Procurement Log is reviewed by the Board at its meeting. Planned Implementation Date of Corrective Action: On-going Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Joanne M. Drag, Finance Director
2018-001
2019-002 ? Reporting ? Performance Reporting: SEMAP Certification U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development CFDA #: 14.871 ? Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Significant Deficiency CRITERIA As prescribed by HUD, when pulling the samples for all SEMAP indicators, the Public Housing Authority (PHA) must leave a clear audit trail that can be used to verify that the PHA?s quality control sample was drawn in an unbiased manner. (24 CFR 985.3) CONDITION We examined the supporting documentation for the Authority?s SEMAP assessment and identified that the Authority did not adequately identify the universes for indicators for the indicators: Selection from the Waiting List (Indicator 1), Reasonable Rent (Indicator 2), determination of adjusted income (Indicator 3), and HQS Quality Control Inspections (Indicator 5), HQS Enforcement (Indicator 6). The Authority did maintain documentation supporting that selections were made in an unbiased manner and that the review was conducted by someone other than the person who performed the work.CAUSE The Authority did not implement procedures to ensure that adequate quality control samples were selected and appropriately documented. EFFECT The Authority may not have made adequate selections in accordance with the requirements of SEMAP and therefore may have potentially incorrectly reported the performance rating. QUESTIONED COSTS None Identified. CONTEXT The Authority conducts the SEMAP assessment on an annual basis. During the SEMAP sample selection process, the Authority needs to generate reports to accurately represent the universes related to each indicator. REPEAT FINDING Not a repeat finding. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that the Authority adequately documents the SEMAP populations and sample selection process for each indicator. AUDITEE?S RESPONSE AND PLANNED CORRECTIVE ACTION See Corrective Action Plan.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2019-002 ? Reporting ? Performance Reporting: SEMAP Certification U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development CFDA #: 14.871 ? Section 8 Housing Choice Vouchers Significant Deficiency CRITERIA As prescribed by HUD, when pulling the samples for all SEMAP indicators, the Public Housing Authority (PHA) must leave a clear audit trail that can be used to verify that the PHA?s quality control sample was drawn in an unbiased manner. (24 CFR 985.3) CONDITION We examined the supporting documentation for the Authority?s SEMAP assessment and identified that the Authority did not adequately identify the universes for indicators for the indicators: Selection from the Waiting List (Indicator 1), Reasonable Rent (Indicator 2), determination of adjusted income (Indicator 3), and HQS Quality Control Inspections (Indicator 5), HQS Enforcement (Indicator 6). The Authority did maintain documentation supporting that selections were made in an unbiased manner and that the review was conducted by someone other than the person who performed the work.CAUSE The Authority did not implement procedures to ensure that adequate quality control samples were selected and appropriately documented. EFFECT The Authority may not have made adequate selections in accordance with the requirements of SEMAP and therefore may have potentially incorrectly reported the performance rating. QUESTIONED COSTS None Identified. CONTEXT The Authority conducts the SEMAP assessment on an annual basis. During the SEMAP sample selection process, the Authority needs to generate reports to accurately represent the universes related to each indicator. REPEAT FINDING Not a repeat finding. RECOMMENDATION We recommend that the Authority adequately documents the SEMAP populations and sample selection process for each indicator. AUDITEE?S RESPONSE AND PLANNED CORRECTIVE ACTION See Corrective Action Plan.
Finding 2019-002 - Reporting - Performance Reporting: SEMAP Certification The Executive Director and Section 8 Coordinator are in the process of procuring an outside contractor through the Request for Proposal (RFP) process to ensure that adequate control samples were selected and to generate the reports that will accurately represent the universes related to the SEMAP indicators. Planned Implementation Date of Corrective Action: On-going Person Responsible for Corrective Action: Gisele Vance , Section 8 Coordinator
FAC accepted this audit on December 17, 2018 — management decision was due June 17, 2019.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2017-002
FAC accepted this audit on October 2, 2017 — management decision was due April 2, 2018.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2016-003
FAC accepted this audit on November 17, 2016 — management decision was due May 17, 2017.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
2015-001
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
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 Connecticut →
Track your findings and corrective action plans across audit cycles.
Start tracking findings →Add it to a monitored group and get alerted when a new audit, finding, repeat finding, or management-decision deadline shows up — instead of checking back.
Checking several at once? Portfolio view →
© 2026 Single Audit Intelligence. All data is public domain.
