St. Olaf CollegeHigher Education

Criteria: Title IV regulations (34 CFR 685.309(b)) require that upon receipt of an enrollment report from the Secretary, institutions must update all information included in the report and return the report to the Secretary: (i) in the manner and format prescribed by the Secretary; and (ii) within the timeframe prescribed by the Secretary. Unless it expects to submit its next updated enrollment report to the Secretary within the next 60 days, an institution must notify the Secretary within 30 days after the date the institution discovers that: (i) a loan under Title IV of the Act was made to or on behalf of a student who was enrolled or accepted for enrollment at the institution, and the student has ceased to be enrolled on at least a half-time basis or failed to enroll on at least a half-time basis for the period for which the loan was intended or (ii) a student who is enrolled at the institution and who received a loan under Title IV of the Act has changed his or her permanent address. Condition: For 3 of 25 students included in our sample, the enrollment status of withdrawn were reported late (61 days after the determination date of separation). The sample was not a statistically valid sample. Cause: The College?s procedures for reporting students? enrollment statuses at the end of the fall semester did not get included in the preliminary reporting for the spring semester and then did get included in the final reporting at the beginning of the spring semester however that was just beyond the 60 days timeframe requirement. Effect: The accuracy of Title IV student loan records depends heavily on the accuracy of the enrollment information reported by institutions. If an institution does not review, update, and verify student enrollment statuses, effective dates of the enrollment status, and the anticipated completion dates, then the Title IV student loan records will be inaccurate. Questioned Costs: Not applicable Context: Not applicable. Recommendation: It is recommended that policies and procedures are put in place to ensure that the correct enrollment status dates and enrollment statuses are reported to the NSLDS within the required timeframes. Management?s Response: Management considers this to be an isolated incident, however, additional controls will be put in place in order to prevent this from happening in the future. Beginning in September 2022, a second Registrar?s Office staff member will complete an additional review of the National Student Clearinghouse status for all students withdrawing after a particular semester. This secondary review will be completed at the end of January and at the end of June in order to ensure the 60-day reporting period is met.

General procurement standards outlined in 2 CFR 200.318(a) state that a non-Federal entity must use its own documented procurement procedures which reflect applicable State, local, and tribal laws and regulations, provided that the procurements conform to the applicable Federal law and the standards identified by the Uniform Guidance (sections 200.318 ? 200.326). The Uniform Guidance outlines requirements over the proper oversight of contractors, having written standards of conduct for employees involved in contracting, awarding contracts to responsible contractors, maintaining records documenting the history of procurements including cost price analysis, conducting all transactions in a manner which provides full and open competition, having procedures for verifying that an entity with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded, utilizing the methods of procurement outlined in the Uniform Guidance, and ensuring every purchase order or contract includes the applicable provisions in Appendix II. Condition: The College?s policies and procedures over procurement generally conform to the requirements outlined by the Uniform Guidance with an exception bonding requirements, contracting with small and minority businesses, and items from Appendix II to Part 200. The auditors compared the College?s policies and procedures to the applicable sections of the Uniform Guidance by reviewing two vendors of a total of four vendors with expenditure for the ESF funds and obtained the associated supporting documentation for our selections. Additionally, the auditors noted that the Institution?s procedures were not followed with regard to ensuring full and open competition, obtaining bids/quotes for the items above the micro-purchase threshold, or retaining documentation for the requirement for verifying for vendor suspension or debarment prior to contracting. The College did check for suspension/disbarment following our identification of the finding and there were no issues. The sample was not a statistically valid sample. Cause: The College's policies were not compared to Uniform Guidance to ensure all elements were incorporated prior to entering into a contract with vendors for which federal funds were the source of the expenditure. Additionally, the College?s procedures were not followed appropriately with regard to vendor bids/selection or to check for suspension and debarment of the contractor to be utilized. Effect: The College is at risk of procuring goods and services that are not in compliance with the requirements outlined by the Uniform Guidance, which increases the risk of federal expenditures being used improperly or the College entering into a covered transaction with a vendor that is debarred or suspended. Questioned costs: Not applicable Context: Not applicable Recommendation: We recommend the College revise its policies and procedures to conform to the requirements of Uniform Guidance and ensure procedures and controls are followed for all vendors to verify that a vendor with which it plans to enter into a covered transaction is not debarred, suspended, or otherwise excluded. Relevant employees should be trained on these new policies and procedures.Management?s Response: Management did not appropriately follow federal procurement guidelines related to costs that were included in the institutional reimbursement portion of HEERF funding. This was an oversight and occurred as a result of the timing of when the purchases were made, or the contracts were entered into, and when the HEERF funding and applicable guidance was communicated by the Department of Education. Management did appropriately review all contracts and the related costs for reasonableness to ensure that the College was being prudent with its financial resources, whether from the federal government or not.