EIN: 363241033
UEI: MNH6LYJ3DH97
Audited by: GELMAN, ROSENBERG & FREEDMAN
Oversight agency: 98 [U.S. Agency for International Development]
View federal awards & risk assessment →
Data as of September 7, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on August 27, 2026. 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 27, 2027 (171 days from today).
What is a management decision? →FAC accepted this audit on September 29, 2025 — management decision was due March 29, 2026.
FAC accepted this audit on October 8, 2024 — management decision was due April 8, 2025.
FAC accepted this audit on November 28, 2023 — management decision was due May 28, 2024.
Management of Alight was notified of an instance of embezzlement that occurred in Thailand. Employees were submitting invoices from a fictitious vendor and affirming that the goods were received. Management of Alight took appropriate action by conducting an investigation and terminating all employees involved in the incident. Cause: Alight did not adequately safeguard its assets. However, Alight's monitoring procedures did detect the embezzlement and they have subsequently enhanced procedures surrounding cash disbursements. Effect or Potential Effect: After investigation, Alight did not find any evidence that a federal award was affected, but Alight notified USAID and coded the stolen amount to unallowable expenses in the general ledger (management did not charge the federal programs for these costs). Questioned Costs: None. Context: Alight failed to properly safeguard all assets. Alight must continue to monitor to ensure that the systems of internal controls throughout its field offices are functioning as designed. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: See Finding 2022-001. Recommendation: We strongly recommend that Alight review its current systems of internal controls, and enhance them where necessary, especially in the higher risk locations, to ensure they are functioning as designated and to prevent further occurrences of embezzlement.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2023-001: Reporting of Known Embezzlement in Thailand Information on the Federal Programs: N/A Criteria or Specific Requirement (including statutory, regulatory, or other citation): Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements,Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards Part 200.302 Financial Management requires recipients to adequately safeguard all assets and assure that they are used solely for authorized purposes. Condition: Management of Alight was notified of an instance of embezzlement that occurred in Thailand. Employees were submitting invoices from a fictitious vendor and affirming that the goods were received. Management of Alight took appropriate action by conducting an investigation and terminating all employees involved in the incident. Cause: Alight did not adequately safeguard its assets. However, Alight's monitoring procedures did detect the embezzlement and they have subsequently enhanced procedures surrounding cash disbursements. Effect or Potential Effect: After investigation, Alight did not find any evidence that a federal award was affected, but Alight notified USAID and coded the stolen amount to unallowable expenses in the general ledger (management did not charge the federal programs for these costs). Questioned Costs: None. Context: Alight failed to properly safeguard all assets. Alight must continue to monitor to ensure that the systems of internal controls throughout its field offices are functioning as designed. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: See Finding 2022-001. Recommendation: We strongly recommend that Alight review its current systems of internal controls, and enhance them where necessary, especially in the higher risk locations, to ensure they are functioning as designated and to prevent further occurrences of embezzlement.
Views of Responsible Officials: As part of our investigation, we determined staff involved in the embezzlement colluded to circumvent Alight’s systems of internal controls at the directions of an Alight manager. In addition to taking the immediate actions listed above, including terminating the employment of staff involved, we also took the following actions: We filed a police report, and are pursuing legal actions against the key actors involved in the malfeasance. Alight’s executive leaders conducted policy, procedures and fraud notification training with the Thai staff including how to report suspected incidence of fraud. Executive leaders and Thai leaders traveled to field offices to review operations and provide staff the opportunity to report issues. We believe these actions reinforce management’s zero tolerance to fraud and offer staff the knowledge and opportunity to report potential issues going forward.
2022-001
FAC accepted this audit on October 24, 2022 — management decision was due April 24, 2023.
Management of Alight was notified of an instance of embezzlement that occurred in Kampala, Uganda. The employees involved in the aforementioned embezzlement were taking bribes from refugees and extorting money. Management of Alight took appropriate action by conducting an investigation and terminating all employees involved in the incident. Cause: Alight did not adequately safeguard its assets. However, Alight's monitoring procedures did detect the embezzlement and they have subsequently enhanced procedures related to petty cash and local payroll control systems. Effect or Potential Effect: After investigation, Alight did not find any evidence that a federal award was affected, but Alight notified USDOS. Questioned Costs: None. Context: Alight failed to properly safeguard all assets. Alight must continue to monitor and ensure that the systems of internal controls throughout its field offices are functioning as designed. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: Not applicable. Recommendation: We strongly recommend that Alight review its current systems of internal controls, and enhance them where necessary, especially in the higher risk locations, to ensure they are functioning as designated and to prevent further occurrences of embezzlement.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2022-001: Reporting of Known Embezzlement in Uganda Information on the Federal Program: CFDA 19.517 Criteria: Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards Part 200.302 Financial Management requires recipients to adequately safeguard all assets and assure that they are used solely for authorized purposes. Condition: Management of Alight was notified of an instance of embezzlement that occurred in Kampala, Uganda. The employees involved in the aforementioned embezzlement were taking bribes from refugees and extorting money. Management of Alight took appropriate action by conducting an investigation and terminating all employees involved in the incident. Cause: Alight did not adequately safeguard its assets. However, Alight's monitoring procedures did detect the embezzlement and they have subsequently enhanced procedures related to petty cash and local payroll control systems. Effect or Potential Effect: After investigation, Alight did not find any evidence that a federal award was affected, but Alight notified USDOS. Questioned Costs: None. Context: Alight failed to properly safeguard all assets. Alight must continue to monitor and ensure that the systems of internal controls throughout its field offices are functioning as designed. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: Not applicable. Recommendation: We strongly recommend that Alight review its current systems of internal controls, and enhance them where necessary, especially in the higher risk locations, to ensure they are functioning as designated and to prevent further occurrences of embezzlement.
Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: Executive leadership at Alight determined that the investigation uncovered an extensive breakdown in values and culture within the Alight Uganda program. At this time, Alight has taken the following actions: ? Immediate action was taken to terminate employment with all staff involved in the malfeasance. ? The Uganda leadership team is in the process of being rebuilt. An interim Country Director was appointed and vacancies recruited and hired. ? Fraud training was provided and attended by almost 60 staff across Alight including Ugandan staff. ? Alight?s anonymous global reporting portal was upgraded with communication and training provided to all Alight country programs. ? Alight?s executive leaders conducted policy, procedures and fraud notification training with the Uganda staff including how to report suspected incidence of fraud. ? Executive leaders and Uganda leaders are routinely traveling to field offices to review operations and provide staff the opportunity to report issues. Executive leadership at Alight believes these actions have re-established appropriate values, culture and processes within Uganda and reinforced their importance across Alight countries. Additional fraud training and reporting will be scheduled in fiscal year 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on September 16, 2021 — management decision was due March 16, 2022.
During our audit, we noted several instances in which Alight did not perform terrorist screening of its vendors, suppliers, employees, and sub-recipients in accordance with the above-noted requirements. The failure to screen such parties increases the possibility that U.S. Government funds may inadvertently be provided to individuals or organizations deemed to be excluded by the U.S. Government. Cause: The Uganda field office's internal policies and procedures governing terrorism requirements were not consistently applied. Effect or Potential Effect: The failure to screen such parties increases the possibility that U.S. Government funds may inadvertently be provided to individuals or organizations deemed to be excluded parties by the United States Government. Questioned Costs: Undetermined Context: The Alight Uganda field office engaged in relationships and made payments throughout the fiscal year to parties without a proper screening process in place. The issue is deemed to be systemic in nature. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: Not applicable. Recommendation: While it should be noted that the Uganda programs make up 11% of the total federal expenditures, we recommend that the Alight Uganda field office revisit its current policy and ensure that all types of parties (as noted above) are included, and educate its employees on the procedures necessary to ensure full compliance with U.S. Government ?anti-terrorism? provisions. We also recommend the Alight Uganda field office document each of these screenings and retain them in the respective files, which should be completed prior to engaging in relationships with these parties. For ongoing relationships, the Alight Uganda field office should consider performing screenings on an annual basis (and document them) to ensure continuous compliance in the event the status of any of these parties changes.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Information on the Federal Program: CFDA 19.517 Criteria: Recipients of U.S. Government funds must adhere to the U.S. Government's requirements under Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards, on screening all potential vendors, consultants, subrecipients, etc. against the System for Award Management (SAM). The screening of all potential vendors, consultants, subrecipients, etc. must be documented in writing. Condition: During our audit, we noted several instances in which Alight did not perform terrorist screening of its vendors, suppliers, employees, and sub-recipients in accordance with the above-noted requirements. The failure to screen such parties increases the possibility that U.S. Government funds may inadvertently be provided to individuals or organizations deemed to be excluded by the U.S. Government. Cause: The Uganda field office's internal policies and procedures governing terrorism requirements were not consistently applied. Effect or Potential Effect: The failure to screen such parties increases the possibility that U.S. Government funds may inadvertently be provided to individuals or organizations deemed to be excluded parties by the United States Government. Questioned Costs: Undetermined Context: The Alight Uganda field office engaged in relationships and made payments throughout the fiscal year to parties without a proper screening process in place. The issue is deemed to be systemic in nature. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: Not applicable. Recommendation: While it should be noted that the Uganda programs make up 11% of the total federal expenditures, we recommend that the Alight Uganda field office revisit its current policy and ensure that all types of parties (as noted above) are included, and educate its employees on the procedures necessary to ensure full compliance with U.S. Government ?anti-terrorism? provisions. We also recommend the Alight Uganda field office document each of these screenings and retain them in the respective files, which should be completed prior to engaging in relationships with these parties. For ongoing relationships, the Alight Uganda field office should consider performing screenings on an annual basis (and document them) to ensure continuous compliance in the event the status of any of these parties changes.
Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: While investigating the sampled transactions listed above, we determined that almost all the vendors and suppliers sampled were checked against the U.S. Government?s terrorist watch list, however the date of the background check could not be confirmed. The lack of a time stamp and lack of a historical log is an inherent weakness in the U.S. Government?s system. In response, Alight is now using Bridger Insight? XG website to conduct the U.S. Government terrorist watch list and background checks on all vendors, suppliers, employees, and sub-recipients. The Bridger system time stamps each background check and saves the history making it possible to review the log and reprint results whenever needed. We believe this new process will adequately address the control weakness. The logistics and supply chain coordinator supported by the finance manager will enforce the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS check) policy for all vendors and suppliers prior to engaging in relationships with these parties. The human resource manager will enforce the policy ahead of all employee and contractor hirings and on an annual basis.
The Alight Uganda field office did not consistently adhere to written policies with respect to the procurement process, as bids/quotes were not performed or evidence of the single source justification was not documented. Cause: The Alight Uganda field office's internal policies and procedures governing procurement were not consistently applied. Effect or Potential Effect: Without proper and complete procurement documentation, there is a risk that the Alight Uganda field office will not perform proper evaluation of each element of cost to determine reasonableness. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: Our audit procedures consisted of internal control testwork over the cash disbursement cycle over a sample population of expenditures. We consider our sample to be representative of the population. The condition appeared to be systematic in nature. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: Not applicable. Recommendation: While it should be noted that the Uganda programs make up 11% of the total federal expenditures, we recommend that all procurement records for purchases in excess of the purchase threshold include the following, at a minimum: (a) basis for contractor/goods selection or (b) justification for lack of competition when competitive bids or offers are not obtained. Additionally, the conclusion should be clearly documented and accompanying the procurement documentation. We then recommend that the Alight Uganda field office ensure its policy is distributed and communicated in a formal manner to its employees, and that management properly enforce compliance with its policy.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Information on the Federal Program: CFDA 19.517 Criteria: Under 2 CFR 200.320 (f), Procurement by noncompetitive proposals is procurement through solicitation of a proposal from only one source and may be used only when one or more of the following circumstances apply: (1) The item is available only from a single source; (2) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from competitive solicitation; (3) The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes noncompetitive proposals in response to a written request from the non-Federal entity; or (4) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. Condition: The Alight Uganda field office did not consistently adhere to written policies with respect to the procurement process, as bids/quotes were not performed or evidence of the single source justification was not documented. Cause: The Alight Uganda field office's internal policies and procedures governing procurement were not consistently applied. Effect or Potential Effect: Without proper and complete procurement documentation, there is a risk that the Alight Uganda field office will not perform proper evaluation of each element of cost to determine reasonableness. Questioned Costs: None noted. Context: Our audit procedures consisted of internal control testwork over the cash disbursement cycle over a sample population of expenditures. We consider our sample to be representative of the population. The condition appeared to be systematic in nature. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: Not applicable. Recommendation: While it should be noted that the Uganda programs make up 11% of the total federal expenditures, we recommend that all procurement records for purchases in excess of the purchase threshold include the following, at a minimum: (a) basis for contractor/goods selection or (b) justification for lack of competition when competitive bids or offers are not obtained. Additionally, the conclusion should be clearly documented and accompanying the procurement documentation. We then recommend that the Alight Uganda field office ensure its policy is distributed and communicated in a formal manner to its employees, and that management properly enforce compliance with its policy.
Views of Responsible Officials and Planned Corrective Actions: While investigating the sampled transactions listed above, we found that these transactions related to the one-off emergency purchase of COVID-19 personal protection equipment (PPE) for Alight?s Uganda staff and partners. This PPE purchase was made with private funds for the specific purpose of rapidly equipping our staff and partners in high-risk environments. With that said, the logistics and supply chain coordinator will enforce the procurement policies and guidelines which include: (a) basis for contractor/goods selection or (b) justification for lack of competition when competitive bids or offers are not obtained. The conclusion will be clearly documented and accompanying the procurement documentation.
FAC accepted this audit on September 23, 2020 — management decision was due March 23, 2021.
Management of Alight was notified of an instance of embezzlement that occurred in Ulang, South Sudan concerning a cash transfer. Cash transfers are handled by Alight's country office in Juba and transfers of cash are made periodically to various remote field offices based on the needs of the offices. The employees involved in the aforementioned cash transfer received more cash than what was reported on the cash report and submitted to the country office which resulted in cash misappropriations totaling approximately $26,000. Management of Alight took appropriate action by conducting an investigation and terminating all employees involved in the incident. Cause: Alight did not adequately safeguard its assets. However, Alight's monitoring procedures did detect the embezzlement and they have subsequently enhanced procedures related to petty cash and local payroll control systems. Effect: After investigation, Alight did not find any evidence that a federal award was affected, but Alight notified USAID and coded the stolen amount to unallowable expenses in the general ledger (management did not charge the federal programs for these costs). Questioned Costs: None. Context: Alight failed to properly safeguard all assets. Alight must continue to monitor and ensure that the systems of internal controls throughout its field offices are functioning as designed. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: Not applicable. Recommendation: We strongly recommend that Alight continue to monitor and ensure internal controls are effective especially in the higher risk locations and environments in which Alight conducts it activities.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2020-001: Reporting of Known Embezzlement in South Sudan Information on the Federal Programs: USAID 98.001 - Foreign Assistance for Programs Overseas Criteria or Specific Requirement (including statutory, regulatory, or other citation): Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards Part 200.302 Financial Management requires recipients to adequately safeguard all assets and assure that they are used solely for authorized purposes. Condition: Management of Alight was notified of an instance of embezzlement that occurred in Ulang, South Sudan concerning a cash transfer. Cash transfers are handled by Alight's country office in Juba and transfers of cash are made periodically to various remote field offices based on the needs of the offices. The employees involved in the aforementioned cash transfer received more cash than what was reported on the cash report and submitted to the country office which resulted in cash misappropriations totaling approximately $26,000. Management of Alight took appropriate action by conducting an investigation and terminating all employees involved in the incident. Cause: Alight did not adequately safeguard its assets. However, Alight's monitoring procedures did detect the embezzlement and they have subsequently enhanced procedures related to petty cash and local payroll control systems. Effect: After investigation, Alight did not find any evidence that a federal award was affected, but Alight notified USAID and coded the stolen amount to unallowable expenses in the general ledger (management did not charge the federal programs for these costs). Questioned Costs: None. Context: Alight failed to properly safeguard all assets. Alight must continue to monitor and ensure that the systems of internal controls throughout its field offices are functioning as designed. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: Not applicable. Recommendation: We strongly recommend that Alight continue to monitor and ensure internal controls are effective especially in the higher risk locations and environments in which Alight conducts it activities.
We acknowledge the feedback that Management too appropriate action by conducting an investigation and terminating the employees involved in the incident. At completion of the investigation, Management instructed the Finance team in Juba to conduct a field office visit to ensure the petty cash and local payroll control systems in Ulang field office are being followed and functioning. Specifically: 1. Cash transfer requests from the field offices include a cash count. 2. Immediately after receiving a cash transfer, the filed office will send an updated cash count to the Juba office reflecting the cash received at the field office. The Juba office will enter the cash transfer into the General Ledger immediately. 3. Juba office to receive a weekly cash status report with cash count from field offices. 4. Safe custodians should comply with the company policy and not to allow one-person full access to the cash. 5. No handover of safe key without a formal cash count. The Finance team in Juba concluded this task before 12/31/2019 and no further corrective actions are required.
FAC accepted this audit on January 20, 2020 — management decision was due July 20, 2020.
As part of our audit work conducted in-country at the Sudan, South Sudan and Kenya (Somalia program) offices, we performed control test work over the payroll cycle at each office. The results of such test work revealed the following exceptions: Sudan: Two instances in which the fund code indicated on the timesheet did not correspond to the fund code within the general ledger; Seven instances where the amount of salary expense allocated within the general ledger did not agree to the allocation percentages based upon the employee time reported on the respective timesheets. South Sudan: Three instances in which the fund code indicated on the timesheet did not correspond to the fund code within the general ledger; Three instances where the amount of salary expense allocated within the general ledger did not agree to the allocation percentages based upon the employee time reported on the respective timesheets; For the month of November 2018, all payroll costs for one region (Aweil West) were allocated based upon on the month of October 2018 allocations due to the fact that the November timesheets were received late. The allocations were not subsequently corrected at the time of our audit work. Somalia: Four instances in which the fund code indicated on the timesheet did not correspond to the fund code within the general ledger. Criteria: In accordance with CFR 200.430, charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must support the distribution of the employee?s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. Cause: Management of the respective offices in Sudan, South Sudan and Kenya (Somalia program) did not properly allocate payroll expense to the proper fund code within the general ledger based upon notations by employees on their timesheets. Potential Effect: As a result of not allocating payroll expense based upon employee timesheets, there is a potential that Alight's federally funded programs may be over-charged or under-charged. Questioned Costs: None to be reported as the known questioned costs were less than $25,000. In addition, the total likely questioned costs resulting from the finding above was also less than $25,000. be maintained (i.e. timesheets and corresponding allocation calculations). As noted above, we performed control test work over the payroll cycles at the Sudan, South Sudan and Kenya (Somalia program) offices. Our test work consisted of selecting 40 transactions for detailed examination at each office. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations and thus, statistically valid. We do not consider the aforementioned finding to be systemic in nature. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: 2018-001 (with respect to the Sudan and South Sudan Programs) Recommendation: We recommend that all individuals at the Sudan, South Sudan and Kenya (Somalia program) offices who are responsible for posting and reviewing payroll transactions to the general be reminded of the importance of ensuring that all payroll transactions agree to the underlying documentation (i.e. timesheets). Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with the findings. The finance controller in collaboration with HR manager will review and ensure payroll transactions posted in the general ledger agree with the respective approved timesheets. Furthermore, international support team will sample monthly transactions and provide the country management with feedback for improving the control over the payroll for a period of three to six months. In July 2019, we have conducted a review of sample of payroll related transactions over a period of 3 months and feedback were communicated to the respective country program
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Finding 2019-001: Results of Payroll Test Work for Sudan, South Sudan and Somalia Programs Federal Program: CFDA 98.001 USAID Foreign Assistance for Programs Overseas Condition: As part of our audit work conducted in-country at the Sudan, South Sudan and Kenya (Somalia program) offices, we performed control test work over the payroll cycle at each office. The results of such test work revealed the following exceptions: Sudan: Two instances in which the fund code indicated on the timesheet did not correspond to the fund code within the general ledger; Seven instances where the amount of salary expense allocated within the general ledger did not agree to the allocation percentages based upon the employee time reported on the respective timesheets. South Sudan: Three instances in which the fund code indicated on the timesheet did not correspond to the fund code within the general ledger; Three instances where the amount of salary expense allocated within the general ledger did not agree to the allocation percentages based upon the employee time reported on the respective timesheets; For the month of November 2018, all payroll costs for one region (Aweil West) were allocated based upon on the month of October 2018 allocations due to the fact that the November timesheets were received late. The allocations were not subsequently corrected at the time of our audit work. Somalia: Four instances in which the fund code indicated on the timesheet did not correspond to the fund code within the general ledger. Criteria: In accordance with CFR 200.430, charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must support the distribution of the employee?s salary or wages among specific activities or cost objectives if the employee works on more than one Federal award; a Federal award and non-Federal award; an indirect cost activity and a direct cost activity; two or more indirect activities which are allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct or indirect cost activity. Cause: Management of the respective offices in Sudan, South Sudan and Kenya (Somalia program) did not properly allocate payroll expense to the proper fund code within the general ledger based upon notations by employees on their timesheets. Potential Effect: As a result of not allocating payroll expense based upon employee timesheets, there is a potential that Alight's federally funded programs may be over-charged or under-charged. Questioned Costs: None to be reported as the known questioned costs were less than $25,000. In addition, the total likely questioned costs resulting from the finding above was also less than $25,000. be maintained (i.e. timesheets and corresponding allocation calculations). As noted above, we performed control test work over the payroll cycles at the Sudan, South Sudan and Kenya (Somalia program) offices. Our test work consisted of selecting 40 transactions for detailed examination at each office. We consider our samples to be representative of the respective populations and thus, statistically valid. We do not consider the aforementioned finding to be systemic in nature. Identification as a Repeat Finding, if Applicable: 2018-001 (with respect to the Sudan and South Sudan Programs) Recommendation: We recommend that all individuals at the Sudan, South Sudan and Kenya (Somalia program) offices who are responsible for posting and reviewing payroll transactions to the general be reminded of the importance of ensuring that all payroll transactions agree to the underlying documentation (i.e. timesheets). Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with the findings. The finance controller in collaboration with HR manager will review and ensure payroll transactions posted in the general ledger agree with the respective approved timesheets. Furthermore, international support team will sample monthly transactions and provide the country management with feedback for improving the control over the payroll for a period of three to six months. In July 2019, we have conducted a review of sample of payroll related transactions over a period of 3 months and feedback were communicated to the respective country program
Views of Responsible Officials: We concur with the findings. The finance controller in collaboration with HR manager will review and ensure payroll transactions posted in the general ledger agree with the respective approved timesheets. Furthermore, international support team will sample monthly transactions and provide the country management with feedback for improving the control over the payroll for a period of three to six months. In July 2019, we have conducted a review of sample of payroll related transactions over a period of 3 months and feedback were communicated to the respective country program
2018-001
FAC accepted this audit on November 26, 2018 — management decision was due May 26, 2019.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴FAC accepted this audit on January 23, 2018 — management decision was due July 23, 2018.
FAC accepted this audit on December 29, 2016 — management decision was due June 29, 2017.
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 Minnesota →
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.
