City of Anderson

FINDING 2024-001 Subject: Federal Transit Cluster - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of Transportation Federal Program: Federal Transit Formula Grants Assistance Listings Number: 20.507 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): IN-2022-018, IN-2024-003-00, IN-2018-028-06 Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Other Matters Condition and Context Procurement Federal regulations allow for informal procurement methods when the value of the procurement for property or services does not exceed the simplified acquisition threshold, which is customarily set at $250,000. However, Indiana Code 5-22-8 has a more restrictive threshold of $150,000 or less for when small purchase procedures may be used. This informal process allows for methods other than the formal bid process. The informal process is divided between two methods based on thresholds: micro-purchases, typically for those purchases $10,000 or under, and small purchase procedures for those purchases above the micro-purchase threshold but below the simplified acquisition threshold. Micro-purchases may be awarded without soliciting competitive price rate quotations. If small purchase procedures are used, then price or rate quotations must be obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources. The City has a process in place that requires the Board of Public Works to approve bids and contracts, but the process did not operate effectively for one of three vendors tested who were subject to the small-purchase procurement requirements. One vendor was identified that fell within the small purchase threshold. Purchases from the vendor totaled $129,259. As such, price or rate quotations from an adequate number of qualified sources should have been obtained. However, the City did not obtain price or rate quotations for the purchases nor was full and open competition provided for the vendor. Additionally, there was no documentation available to support the rationale to limit competition nor was a contract awarded for the services provided. Suspension and Debarment Prior to entering into covered transactions with federal award funds, recipients are required to verify that vendors are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is to be done by checking the SAMs exclusions, collecting a certification from that person, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person. Inquiry and fieldwork determined that the City had a process in place to verify that vendors were not suspended or debarred but the process was not operating effectively. There was no documented oversight, review, or approval process to ensure the process was completed timely. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 14 CITY OF ANDERSON SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Two vendors were selected for suspension and debarment testing. We were able to determine that suspension and debarment searches on the SAM.GOV website were made, but we could not determine that the searches occurred prior to contracting with the vendor. For the first vendor, the documentation provided indicated that the search for suspension and debarment on the SAM.GOV website was done subsequent to the purchase of the equipment. For the second vendor, the date of the search on the SAM.GOV website could not be determined. Additionally, the suspension and debarment verification was done by one employee without evidence of oversite and review. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was a systemic issue throughout the audit period for the federal awards IN-2022-018, IN-2024-003-00, and IN-2018-028-06. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318(a) states: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non- Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327." 2 CFR 1200.10 adopts the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance in subparts A through I of 2 CFR part 180, as supplemented by this part, as the Department of Transportation policies and procedures for nonprocurement suspension and debarment. 2 CFR 180.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you intend to do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the SAM Exclusions; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 15 CITY OF ANDERSON SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Cause Management had not designed or implemented a system of internal controls that would have ensured procedures were in place that would comply with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award in relation to the requirements of the Procurement and Suspension and Debarment compliance requirement. For the small purchases procurement requirement, several purchases from one vendor had occurred without the City noticing the small purchases threshold had been exceeded. For the requirement to check the suspension and debarment status, the City failed to document the date searched in one case and saved a search dated after the award date in another case. Effect The failure to design and implement an effective internal control system enabled noncompliance to remain undetected. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the reduction of future federal funding to the City. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified.

FINDING 2024-002 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): SLFRP1096 Compliance Requirement: Procurement and Suspension and Debarment Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context Each entity that accepts federal money must comply with 2 CFR 300.318, which requires each entity to have their own documented procurement procedures. The City provided a procurement policy from Title II of an employee manual that did not fully satisfy the standards of 2 CFR 200.318. The employee manual was adopted in 2004. The COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were used to pay for engineering services in the amount of $301,000. These services were not publicly bid even though the dollar amount of the services exceeds the simplified acquisition threshold. Prior to entering into subawards and covered transactions with the COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds (SLFRF) award funds, recipients are required to verify that such contractors and subrecipients are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded. "Covered transactions" include, but are not limited to, contracts for goods and services awarded under a nonprocurement transaction (i.e., grant agreement) that are expected to equal or exceed $25,000. The verification is done by checking the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS), collecting a certification from that vendor, or adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that vendor. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 16 CITY OF ANDERSON SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) The City included suspension and debarment certifications with the agreements with many of the vendors who participated in the activities funded by the SLFRF funds. The City also checked the EPLS for some vendors. Evidence of compliance with the suspension and debarment verification requirements was not provided for two of four vendors selected for suspension and debarment testing. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance was a systemic issue throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.318 states in part: "(a) The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with State, local, and tribal laws and regulations and the standards of this section, for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or subaward. The non-Federal entity's documented procurement procedures must conform to the procurement standards identified in §§ 200.317 through 200.327. . . . (c) (1) The non-Federal entity must maintain written standards of conduct covering conflicts of interest and governing the actions of its employees engaged in the selection, award and administration of contracts. . . . (i) The non-Federal entity 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 the contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. . . ." 2 CFR 200.320 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must have and use documented procurement procedures, consistent with the standards of this section and §§ 200.317, 200.318, and 200.319 for any of the following methods of procurement used for the acquisition of property or services required under a Federal award or sub-award. . . . INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 17 CITY OF ANDERSON SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (b) Formal procurement methods. When the value of the procurement for property or services under a Federal financial assistance award exceeds the SAT, or a lower threshold established by a non-Federal entity, formal procurement methods are required. Formal procurement methods require following documented procedures. Formal procurement methods also require public advertising unless a non-competitive procurement can be used in accordance with § 200.319 or paragraph (c) of this section. The following formal methods of procurement are used for procurement of property or services above the simplified acquisition threshold or a value below the simplified acquisition threshold the non-Federal entity determines to be appropriate: (1) Sealed bids. A procurement method in which bids are publicly solicited and a firm fixed-price contract (lump sum or unit price) is awarded to the responsible bidder whose bid, conforming with all the material terms and conditions of the invitation for bids, is the lowest in price. The sealed bids method is the preferred method for procuring construction, if the conditions. (i) In order for sealed bidding to be feasible, the following conditions should be present: (A) A complete, adequate, and realistic specification or purchase description is available; (B) Two or more responsible bidders are willing and able to compete effectively for the business; and (C) The procurement lends itself to a firm fixed price contract and the selection of the successful bidder can be made principally on the basis of price. (ii) If sealed bids are used, the following requirements apply: (A) Bids must be solicited from an adequate number of qualified sources, providing them sufficient response time prior to the date set for opening the bids, for local, and tribal governments, the invitation for bids must be publicly advertised; (B) The invitation for bids, which will include any specifications and pertinent attachments, must define the items or services in order for the bidder to properly respond; (C) All bids will be opened at the time and place prescribed in the invitation for bids, and for local and tribal governments, the bids must be opened publicly; (D) A firm fixed price contract award will be made in writing to the lowest responsive and responsible bidder. Where specified in bidding documents, factors such as discounts, transportation cost, and life cycle costs must be considered in determining which bid is lowest. Payment discounts will only be used to determine the low bid when prior experience indicates that such discounts are usually taken advantage of; and (E) Any or all bids may be rejected if there is a sound documented reason. . . ." INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 18 CITY OF ANDERSON SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) 31 CFR 19.300 states: "When you enter into a covered transaction with another person at the next lower tier, you must verify that the person with whom you do business is not excluded or disqualified. You do this by: (a) Checking the EPLS; or (b) Collecting a certification from that person if allowed by this rule; or (c) Adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that person." Cause The City did not have adequate internal controls over procurement and suspension and debarment. The City had not adopted a formal or informal policy for procurement that meets the requirements of 2 CFR 300.318. The City did not apply its procedures over suspension and debarment uniformly with one vendor not tested for suspension and debarment due to the specific aspects of the City's grant plan that the vendor was assigned to. Effect Without establishing effective internal controls over procurement and suspension and debarment, the City cannot ensure free and open competition or that the vendors paid with federal funds are eligible to participate in federal programs and might allow for payments to suspended or debarred parties that would be unallowable. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could potentially result in the loss of future funding to the City. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City establish a formal policy on procurement that meets the standards of 2 CFR 200.318 and develop effective internal controls and procedures to ensure that all vendors in which expenditures exceed $25,000 are not suspended, debarred, or otherwise excluded prior to entering into contracts or subawards.

FINDING 2024-003 Subject: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds - Subrecipient Monitoring Federal Agency: Department of the Treasury Federal Program: COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds Assistance Listings Number: 21.027 Federal Award Number and Year (or Other Identifying Number): SLFRP1096 Compliance Requirement: Subrecipient Monitoring Audit Finding: Material Weakness INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 19 CITY OF ANDERSON SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Condition and Context Subrecipients associated with the City's Non-profit, Affordable Housing, and Homeless Initiatives activities funded by the COVID-19 - Coronavirus State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds were required to submit reports on program activities either quarterly or monthly. The City did not have adequate internal controls in place designed to ensure that these reports were reviewed. Responsibility for reviewing these reports rested primarily with one employee. For two of three subrecipients tested, we were not able to determine that there was a second employee involved that would ensure that the reports submitted by the subrecipients were reviewed by the City. The lack of internal controls was a systemic issue throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.332 states: "All pass-through entities must: (a) Ensure that every subaward is clearly identified to the subrecipient as a subaward and include the following information at the time of the subaward and if any of these data elements change, include the changes in subsequent subaward notification. When some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity must provide the best information available to describe the Federal award and subaward. Required information includes: (1) Federal award identification. (i) Subrecipient name (which must match the name associated with its unique entity identifier); (ii) Subrecipient's unique entity identifier; (iii) Federal Award Identification Number (FAIN); (iv) Federal Award Date (see the definition of Federal award date in § 200.1 of this part) of award to the recipient by the Federal agency; (v) Subaward Period of Performance Start and End Date; INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 20 CITY OF ANDERSON SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (vi) Subaward Budget Period Start and End Date; (vii) Amount of Federal Funds Obligated by this action by the pass-through entity to the subrecipient; (viii) Total Amount of Federal Funds Obligated to the subrecipient by the passthrough entity including the current financial obligation; (ix) Total Amount of the Federal Award committed to the subrecipient by the passthrough entity; (x) Federal award project description, as required to be responsive to the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA); (xi) Name of Federal awarding agency, pass-through entity, and contact information for awarding official of the Pass-through entity; (xii) Assistance Listings number and Title; the pass-through entity must identify the dollar amount made available under each Federal award and the Assistance Listings Number at time of disbursement; (xiii) Identification of whether the award is R&D; and (xiv) Indirect cost rate for the Federal award (including if the de minimis rate is charged) per § 200.414. (2) All requirements imposed by the pass-through entity on the subrecipient so that the Federal award is used in accordance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of the Federal award; (3) Any additional requirements that the pass-through entity imposes on the subrecipient in order for the pass-through entity to meet its own responsibility to the Federal awarding agency including identification of any required financial and performance reports. (4) (i) An approved federally recognized indirect cost rate negotiated between the subrecipient and the Federal Government. If no approved rate exists, the passthrough entity must determine the appropriate rate in collaboration with the subrecipient, which is either: (A) The negotiated indirect cost rate between the pass-through entity and the subrecipient; which can be based on a prior negotiated rate between a different PTE and the same subrecipient. If basing the rate on a previously negotiated rate, the pass through entity is not required to collect information justifying this rate, but may elect to do so; (B) The de minimis indirect cost rate. (ii) The pass-through entity must not require use of a de minimis indirect cost rate if the subrecipient has a Federally approved rate. Subrecipients can elect to use the cost allocation method to account for indirect costs in accordance with § 200.405(d). INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 21 CITY OF ANDERSON SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (5) A requirement that the subrecipient permit the pass-through entity and auditors to have access to the subrecipient's records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity to meet the requirements of this part; and (6) Appropriate terms and conditions concerning closeout of the subaward. . . . (b) Evaluate each subrecipient's risk of noncompliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward for purposes of determining the appropriate subrecipient monitoring described in paragraphs (d) and (e) of this section, which may include consideration of such factors as: (1) The subrecipient's prior experience with the same or similar subawards; (2) The results of previous audits including whether or not the subrecipient receives a Single Audit in accordance with Subpart F of this part, and the extent to which the same or similar subaward has been audited as a major program; (3) Whether the subrecipient has new personnel or new or substantially changed systems; and (4) The extent and results of Federal awarding agency monitoring (e.g., if the subrecipient also receives Federal awards directly from a Federal awarding agency). (c) Consider imposing specific subaward conditions upon a subrecipient if appropriate as described in § 200.208. (d) Monitor the activities of the subrecipient as necessary to ensure that the subaward is used for authorized purposes, in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the subaward; and that subaward performance goals are achieved. Pass-through entity monitoring of the subrecipient must include: (1) Reviewing financial and performance reports required by the pass-through entity. (2) Following-up and ensuring that the subrecipient takes timely and appropriate action on all deficiencies pertaining to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity detected through audits, on-site reviews, and written confirmation from the subrecipient, highlighting the status of actions planned or taken to address Single Audit findings related to the particular subaward. (3) Issuing a management decision for applicable audit findings pertaining only to the Federal award provided to the subrecipient from the pass-through entity as required by § 200.521. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 22 CITY OF ANDERSON SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) (4) The pass-through entity is responsible for resolving audit findings specifically related to the subaward and not responsible for resolving crosscutting findings. If a subrecipient has a current Single Audit report posted in the Federal Audit Clearinghouse and has not otherwise been excluded from receipt of Federal funding (e.g., has been debarred or suspended), the pass-through entity may rely on the subrecipient's cognizant audit agency or cognizant oversight agency to perform audit follow-up and make management decisions related to cross-cutting findings in accordance with section § 200.513(a)(3)(vii). Such reliance does not eliminate the responsibility of the pass-through entity to issue subawards that conform to agency and award-specific requirements, to manage risk through ongoing subaward monitoring, and to monitor the status of the findings that are specifically related to the subaward. (e) Depending upon the pass-through entity's assessment of risk posed by the subrecipient (as described in paragraph (b) of this section), the following monitoring tools may be useful for the pass-through entity to ensure proper accountability and compliance with program requirements and achievement of performance goals: (1) Providing subrecipients with training and technical assistance on program related matters; and (2) Performing on-site reviews of the subrecipient's program operations. (3) Arranging for agreed-upon-procedures engagements as described in § 200.425. (f) Verify that every subrecipient is audited as required by Subpart F of this part when it is expected that the subrecipient's Federal awards expended during the respective fiscal year equaled or exceeded the threshold set forth in § 200.501. (g) Consider whether the results of the subrecipient's audits, on-site reviews, or other monitoring indicate conditions that necessitate adjustments to the pass-through entity's own records. (h) Consider taking enforcement action against noncompliant subrecipients as described in § 200.339 of this part and in program regulations." Cause A system of internal controls to include oversite and review of the quarterly or monthly reports prepared by the subrecipients was not in place. One individual was primarily responsible for reviewing the subrecipient reports. Effect Not having procedures in place for oversite and review of the monitoring reports could lead to noncompliance with the requirements for subrecipient monitoring. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. INDIANA STATE BOARD OF ACCOUNTS 23 CITY OF ANDERSON SCHEDULE OF FINDINGS AND QUESTIONED COSTS (Continued) Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City establish a proper system of internal controls to include oversite and review to ensure that the subrecipient report reviews are reviewed/approved by a second party. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.

FINDING 2023-001 Subject: CDBG - Entitlement Grants Cluster - Equipment and Real Property Management Federal Agency: Department of Housing and Urban Development Federal Program: Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants Assistance Listings Number: 14.218 Federal Award Numbers and Year (or Other Identifying Numbers): B-18-MC-18-0001, B-19-MC-18-0001, B-20-MC-18-0001, B-21-MC-18-0001, B-22-MC-18-0001, B-23-MC-18-0001 Compliance Requirement: Equipment and Real Property Management Audit Findings: Material Weakness, Modified Opinion Condition and Context Community Development Block Grants/Entitlement Grants (CDBG) may be used to acquire real and personal property, supplies, and equipment. Equipment purchased with CDBG funds requires management, among other things, to maintain property records, complete a physical inventory, safeguard against loss, and properly maintain the equipment. A property record or capital asset listing, which would include the following attributes, is to be maintained for assets purchased.  A description of the property.  A serial number or other identification number.  The source of funding for the property (including the federal award identification number FAIN).  Who holds title.  The acquisition date.  Cost of the property.  Percentage of federal participation in the project costs for the federal award under which the property was acquired.  The location.  Use and condition of the property. Although the City maintained property records, adequate property records for assets purchased with CDBG award funds was not maintained. The one asset purchased with CDBG funds, totaling $222,333, was added to the property records, but did not include the source of funding for the property, who holds title, percentage of federal participation, and condition of the property. The lack of internal controls and noncompliance were systemic issues throughout the audit period. Criteria 2 CFR 200.303 states in part: "The non-Federal entity must: (a) Establish and maintain effective internal control over the Federal award that provides reasonable assurance that the non-Federal entity is managing the Federal award in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in 'Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government' issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the 'Internal Control Integrated Framework', issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). . . ." 2 CFR 200.313(d) states in part: ". . . (1) Property records must be maintained that include a description of the property, a serial number or other identification number, the source of funding for the property (including the FAIN), who holds title, the acquisition date, and cost of the property, percentage of Federal participation in the project costs for the Federal award under which the property was acquired, the location, use and condition of the property, and any ultimate disposition data including the date of disposal and sale price of the property. (2) A physical inventory of the property must be taken and the results reconciled with the property records at least once every two years. (3) A control system must be developed to ensure adequate safeguards to prevent loss, damage, or theft of the property. Any loss, damage, or theft must be investigated. (4) Adequate maintenance procedures must be developed to keep the property in good condition. . . ." Cause A proper system of internal controls was not designed by management of the City. Embedded within a properly designed and implemented internal control system should be internal controls consisting of policies and procedures. Policies reflect the City's management of what should be done to effect internal controls, and procedures should consist of actions that would implement these policies. The City did not add an improvement as they were unaware that this should be added to the property records. In addition, the property records did not include all the necessary fields as the City did not know the additional information was needed. Effect Without the proper implementation of an effectively designed system of internal controls, the internal control system cannot be capable of effectively preventing, or detecting and correcting, material noncompliance. As a result, not all required elements of the property record were documented for assets acquired with CDBG award funds nor were all assets added to the property records. Noncompliance with the provisions of federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal award could result in the loss of future federal funding to the City. Questioned Costs There were no questioned costs identified. Recommendation We recommended that management of the City establish a proper system of internal controls and develop policies and procedures to ensure property records are maintained for all assets purchased and that all required elements are included within the property records. Views of Responsible Officials For the views of responsible officials, refer to the Corrective Action Plan that is part of this report.

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION

GSA_MIGRATION