MONITEAU SCHOOL DISTRICT

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION-FINDING 2024-002 – PROCUREMENT PROCEDURES-AMERICAN RESCUE PLAN (ARP) ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL EMERGENCY RELIEF FUND (ESSER III) - ALN 84.425U-CONDITION: During my review of the District’s compliance with the requirements for noncompetitive procurement, I noted the District did not document its rationale for purchases made from ‘Associates in Counseling’. This is a repeat finding 2023-002 from the prior fiscal year-CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records include but are not limited to the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used.-EFFECT: The District did not comply with Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance, and District Procurement Policy #626, regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement.-QUESTIONED COST: $163,315-CAUSE: The District utilized this vendor as they felt these professional services best fit the needs of the District. However, the additional procedures addressed in its Procurement Policy for Federal Programs (#626) which addresses the issue of noncompetitive procurement as outlined in Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’), were inadvertently not performed.-RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases involving noncompetitive procurement, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs (#626), and 2) Section 2 CFR 200.320(c) of the Uniform Guidance.-VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: Management of the School District has reviewed the above noted finding and recommendation and have developed a corresponding ‘Corrective Action Plan’ to address this matter (See Corrective Action Plan).

CONDITION: The Moniteau School District contracted with a third-party vendor (Smart Solutions Technologies) for technology equipment (Smart Boards and Mobile Carts) for the District which exceeded the threshold for competitive procurement. The District was unable to provide documentation to verify that the third-party procurement contract was competitively procured, such as a bid evaluation and public solicitation. This is a repeat finding (2022-001) from prior fiscal year. CRITERIA: 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code and Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance prescribes the bidding requirements for equipment, supplies, and work of any nature made by a school district whereby the cost exceeds certain dollar thresholds as adjusted annually for an inflation index. As specified in 2 CFR 200. 318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records will include, but are not necessarily limited to, the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. CAUSE: School District personnel directly responsible for the oversight and execution of this contract, unintentionally assumed that this particular third-party contract did not require the specific bidding requirements as outlined in both 24 Pa. Statutes 751 of the Public School Code and Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance. EFFECT: The Moniteau School District did not comply with the requirements of 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance with regard to maintaining records sufficient to detail the history of procurement for the technology equipment. QUESTIONED COST: $184,219 RECOMMENDATION: I am recommending that the management of the School District review and update as necessary its procurement policies to ensure retention of the appropriate procurement documentation, in all instances, so as to comply with all applicable sections of the Uniform Guidance, in specifically, Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance. In addition, I am recommending that management contact the PA Department of Education, and explain the circumstances and oversight, and seek direction as to the allowability of this program cost in writing for their permanent files. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: Management of the School District has reviewed the above noted finding and recommendation and have developed a corresponding ‘Corrective Action Plan’ to address this matter (See Corrective Action Plan).

CONDITION: During my review of the District’s compliance with the requirements for noncompetitive procurement, I noted the District did not document its rationale for purchases made from ‘Associates in Counseling’. CRITERIA: In accordance with Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) of the Uniform Guidance, the District must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records include but are not limited to the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. Furthermore, Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance details five (5) circumstances in which noncompetitive procurement can be used. EFFECT: The District did not comply with Section 2 CFR 200.318(i) and Section 2CFR 200.320(c’) of the Uniform Guidance, and District Procurement Policy #626, regarding the proper documentation required for noncompetitive procurement. QUESTIONED COST: $82,119 CAUSE: The District utilized this vendor as they felt these professional services best fit the needs of the District. However, the additional procedures addressed in its Procurement Policy for Federal Programs (#626) which addresses the issue of noncompetitive procurement as outlined in Section 2 CFR 200.320(c’), were inadvertently not performed. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that for all future purchases involving noncompetitive procurement, that the District adhere to the requirements of 1) the District’s Procurement Policy for Federal Programs (#626), and 2) Section 2 CFR 200.320(c) of the Uniform Guidance. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: Management of the School District has reviewed the above noted finding and recommendation and have developed a corresponding ‘Corrective Action Plan’ to address this matter (See Corrective Action Plan).

CONDITION: During my review of the District’s compliance with the laws and regulations related to filing its federal grant program Final Expenditure Reports (FER), I noted that the School District did not file the Final Expenditure Report for the ESSER I grant program. The report was required to be filed with the Pennsylvania Department of Education (PDE) no later than 90 days after the end date of the grant period (September 30, 2022), or within 30 days of expending all grant funding. CRITERIA: The Department of Education requires the completion and submission of a ‘Final Expenditure Report’ (FER) within 30 days of expending all grant funding. In addition, Section 2 CFR 200.344 of the Uniform Guidance requires the submission of financial reports no later than 90 calendar days after the end date of the grant period for performance. EFFECT: The District is not in compliance with the financial reporting requirements for timely submission of a ‘final expenditure report’ (FER) for its ESSER I grant program in accordance with PDE policy and Section 2 CFR 200.344 of the Uniform Guidance. QUESTIONED COST: None CAUSE: It was not readily determinable as to why the School District had not completed and filed the ‘Final Expenditure Report’ with PDE in a timely manner. RECOMMENDATION: I recommend that the District develop fiscal procedures to ensure that ‘Final Expenditure Reports’ for future fiscal years are completed and filed in a timely manner based on supporting financial information obtained from the District’s business office, in order to 1) comply with PDE reporting requirements for the District’s applicable federal programs, and 2) to avoid any future sanctions or withholding of grant monies from PDE as a result of not filing these reports in a timely manner. VIEWS OF RESPONSIBLE OFFICIALS: Management of the School District has reviewed the above noted finding and recommendation and have developed a corresponding ‘Corrective Action Plan’ to address this matter (See Corrective Action Plan).

CONDITION: The Moniteau School District contracted with a third-party vendor (Smart Solutions Technologies) for technology equipment (Smart Boards and Mobile Carts) for the District which exceeded the threshold for competitive procurement. The District was unable to provide documentation to verify that the third-party procurement contract was competitively procured, such as a bid evaluation and public solicitation.

CONDITION: The Moniteau School District contracted with a third-party vendor (Toshiba American Business Solutions) for the purchase of copier equipment. The contract with the third-party vendor was procured through a cooperative purchasing group. The District was unable to provide documentation to verify that the third-party procurement contract was competitively procured, such as a bid evaluation and public solicitation.

CONDITION: The Moniteau School District does not take affirmative action steps to ensure that minority businesses, women?s business enterprises, and labor surplus area firms are used when possible, in the procurement process.