EIN: 530242992
UEI: Z3X2G8N28DN3
Audited by: BDO USA, P.C.
Oversight agency: 47 [National Science Foundation]
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 March 9, 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 September 9, 2026 (1 day ago).
What is a management decision? →Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Information on the Major Federal Program: Federal agency: National Science Foundation (NSF) and Department of Health and Human Services – National Institute of Health (HHS-NIH) Assistance listing number: 47.076 and 93.859 Assistance listing name and award number: NSF Indigenous Climate Journalism - #42-10059-24006 and Biomedical Research and Research Training - #45-14000-24002 Award year: NSF: 09/01/2023 - 04/25/2025 HHS-NIH: 07/20/2023 - 06/30/2028 Criteria – The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal Control requires that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards (i.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Per 2 CFR Section 200.430 Compensation – Personal Services: “Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1)Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the establish written policy of thenon-Federal entity consistently applied to both Federal and non-Federal activities; (2)Follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules orwritten policies and meets the requirements of Federal statute, where applicable; and (3)Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, Standards forDocumentation of Personnel Expenses, when applicable.” 2 CFR Section 200.430 (g): “Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i)Be supported by a system of internal control that provides reasonable assurance that thecharges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii)Be incorporated into the official records of the recipient or subrecipient; (iii)Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the recipientor subrecipient, not exceeding 100 percent of compensated activities; (iv)Encompass federally-assisted and all other activities compensated by the recipient orsubrecipient on an integrated basis but may include the use of subsidiary records as definedin the recipient's or subrecipient's written policy; (v)Comply with the established accounting policies and procedures of the recipient orsubrecipient; (vi)Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or costobjectives 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 indirectactivities allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct orindirect cost activity. (vii)Budget estimates (i.e., estimates determined before the services are performed) alone donot qualify as support for charges to Federal awards.” Condition – During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, the Organization allocated payroll expenditures charged to the Research and Development Program (major program) based on estimated percentages of personnel time dedicated to the grant. Management did not maintain documentation evidencing that the allocation methodology and resulting payroll distributions were reviewed and approved on a timely basis during the fiscal year. Compensating controls and audit results noted include: (i) payroll costs were budgeted by program and program budgets were approved, (ii) payroll charges were reconciled to the general ledger and reviewed, and (iii) substantive testing of payroll costs charged to the major program identified no exceptions in a sample of 10 payroll transactions tested. Cause – Although the Organization has established policies and procedures intended to support and evidence review and approval of payroll allocations charged to the major program, these procedures were not performed and/or retained in a timely manner during the fiscal year. As a result, management did not maintain contemporaneous documentation supporting that payroll allocation percentages and resulting payroll distributions were reviewed and approved in accordance with the Organization’s established guidelines and applicable regulations. Effect – The lack of timely documented review and approval of payroll allocation support increases the risk that payroll costs could be inaccurately allocated to the federal award and therefore not comply with 2 CFR 200.430 requirements for documentation of personnel expenses. However, based on compensating controls and our substantive testing (no exceptions noted in a sample of 10 transactions), there are no known or likely questioned costs and no misallocations were identified in the items tested. Questioned Costs – There are no known or likely questioned costs. Context – This is a condition identified per review of the Organization’s compliance with specified requirements of the Uniform Guidance. The prevalence of this finding is detailed in the condition section above. Repeat Finding – This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation – We recommend that management ensure established policies and procedures for the timely review and approval of payroll allocation methodologies and payroll expenditures charged to the major program are consistently performed. Management should also retain documentation evidencing the review and approval (including reviewer, date, and scope of review) to demonstrate compliance with 2 CFR 200.430. Views of Responsible Officials – Management agrees with the finding. Please see appendix A for Management’s Corrective Action Plan.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Compliance Requirement: Activities Allowed or Unallowed and Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Information on the Major Federal Program: Federal agency: National Science Foundation (NSF) and Department of Health and Human Services – National Institute of Health (HHS-NIH) Assistance listing number: 47.076 and 93.859 Assistance listing name and award number: NSF Indigenous Climate Journalism - #42-10059-24006 and Biomedical Research and Research Training - #45-14000-24002 Award year: NSF: 09/01/2023 - 04/25/2025 HHS-NIH: 07/20/2023 - 06/30/2028 Criteria – The Uniform Guidance in 2 CFR Section 200.303, Internal Control requires that non-Federal entities receiving Federal awards (i.e., auditee management) establish and maintain internal control designed to reasonably ensure compliance with Federal statues, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award. Per 2 CFR Section 200.430 Compensation – Personal Services: “Costs of compensation are allowable to the extent that they satisfy the specific requirements of this part, and that the total compensation for individual employees: (1)Is reasonable for the services rendered and conforms to the establish written policy of thenon-Federal entity consistently applied to both Federal and non-Federal activities; (2)Follows an appointment made in accordance with a non-Federal entity’s laws and/or rules orwritten policies and meets the requirements of Federal statute, where applicable; and (3)Is determined and supported as provided in paragraph (i) of this section, Standards forDocumentation of Personnel Expenses, when applicable.” 2 CFR Section 200.430 (g): “Standards for Documentation of Personnel Expenses (1) Charges to Federal awards for salaries and wages must be based on records that accurately reflect the work performed. These records must: (i)Be supported by a system of internal control that provides reasonable assurance that thecharges are accurate, allowable, and properly allocated; (ii)Be incorporated into the official records of the recipient or subrecipient; (iii)Reasonably reflect the total activity for which the employee is compensated by the recipientor subrecipient, not exceeding 100 percent of compensated activities; (iv)Encompass federally-assisted and all other activities compensated by the recipient orsubrecipient on an integrated basis but may include the use of subsidiary records as definedin the recipient's or subrecipient's written policy; (v)Comply with the established accounting policies and procedures of the recipient orsubrecipient; (vi)Support the distribution of the employee's salary or wages among specific activities or costobjectives 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 indirectactivities allocated using different allocation bases; or an unallowable activity and a direct orindirect cost activity. (vii)Budget estimates (i.e., estimates determined before the services are performed) alone donot qualify as support for charges to Federal awards.” Condition – During the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025, the Organization allocated payroll expenditures charged to the Research and Development Program (major program) based on estimated percentages of personnel time dedicated to the grant. Management did not maintain documentation evidencing that the allocation methodology and resulting payroll distributions were reviewed and approved on a timely basis during the fiscal year. Compensating controls and audit results noted include: (i) payroll costs were budgeted by program and program budgets were approved, (ii) payroll charges were reconciled to the general ledger and reviewed, and (iii) substantive testing of payroll costs charged to the major program identified no exceptions in a sample of 10 payroll transactions tested. Cause – Although the Organization has established policies and procedures intended to support and evidence review and approval of payroll allocations charged to the major program, these procedures were not performed and/or retained in a timely manner during the fiscal year. As a result, management did not maintain contemporaneous documentation supporting that payroll allocation percentages and resulting payroll distributions were reviewed and approved in accordance with the Organization’s established guidelines and applicable regulations. Effect – The lack of timely documented review and approval of payroll allocation support increases the risk that payroll costs could be inaccurately allocated to the federal award and therefore not comply with 2 CFR 200.430 requirements for documentation of personnel expenses. However, based on compensating controls and our substantive testing (no exceptions noted in a sample of 10 transactions), there are no known or likely questioned costs and no misallocations were identified in the items tested. Questioned Costs – There are no known or likely questioned costs. Context – This is a condition identified per review of the Organization’s compliance with specified requirements of the Uniform Guidance. The prevalence of this finding is detailed in the condition section above. Repeat Finding – This is not a repeat finding. Recommendation – We recommend that management ensure established policies and procedures for the timely review and approval of payroll allocation methodologies and payroll expenditures charged to the major program are consistently performed. Management should also retain documentation evidencing the review and approval (including reviewer, date, and scope of review) to demonstrate compliance with 2 CFR 200.430. Views of Responsible Officials – Management agrees with the finding. Please see appendix A for Management’s Corrective Action Plan.
Corrective Actions Taken or Planned: Management concurs with the auditor’s assessment that this was a control oversight and a breakdown in the internal control system for payroll documentation, rather than intentional noncompliance. As part of our federal grant closeout efforts, we have taken the following steps to address the deficiency: •After-the-Fact Certifications: As of this response, WETA has obtained ten after-the-factemployee certifications confirming that the payroll allocations for FY 2025 accurately reflectthe effort performed. These certifications are on file and available for review. •Managerial Oversight Confirmation: The Director of Production Operations has provided writtenconfirmation that monthly allocation decisions were discussed with project managers andreflected in payroll actions, though these reviews were not formally documented at the time. •Policy Review and Update: Management is currently reviewing and updating internal policiesto ensure that documentation procedures align with operational practices. These updates willrequire contemporaneous certification and documentation of payroll allocations for any futurefederal or restricted awards. •Training and Controls: We are developing additional training to reinforce documentationexpectations and strengthen internal controls among finance and operational staff. Completion Date: January 31, 2026 Contact Person: Dorian Davis Title: Corporate Controller Phone Number: (703) 998-2216
FAC accepted this audit on December 12, 2024 — management decision was due June 12, 2025.
Instances of noncompliance have been identified as the Organization did not perform a search for vendor suspension or debarment prior to using such vendor on the major program’s Federal award. Cause: The cause is due to a lack of sufficient internal control procedures in place to ensure compliance with material compliance requirements for its federal award. Effect: The finding resulted in a significant deficiency issued on compliance for major programs. The vendor was subsequently searched and found not to be suspended or debarred. Questioned costs: None. Context: The Organization utilized one vendor in connection with all costs for the major program. Due to the prior use and history with the vendor, the Organization did not perform a search for suspension or debarment on the vendor despite using the vendor for a federal award. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review the most recent Compliance Supplement, which outlines compliance requirements for several of its federal awards. We encourage the Organization to monitor for any updates to the Compliance Supplement annually. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding. See corrective action plan.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Other Matter/Significant Deficiency Assistance Listing Number title and number: Promotion of the Humanities Challenge Grants, Assistance Listing Number 45.130 Federal award grant number and year: CHA-284001-22; 2024 Federal agency: National Endowment for the Arts Criteria: Auditee requirements contained in Title 2 U.S. Code of Federal Regulations (2 CFR) Part 200, Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and audit Requirements for Federal Awards, requires the auditee to comply with federal statutes, regulations, terms and conditions of federal awards that may have a direct and material effect on each of its major programs. The procurement compliance requirement requires the Organization to perform a search for vendor suspension or debarment prior to any use in conjunction with Federal awards. Condition: Instances of noncompliance have been identified as the Organization did not perform a search for vendor suspension or debarment prior to using such vendor on the major program’s Federal award. Cause: The cause is due to a lack of sufficient internal control procedures in place to ensure compliance with material compliance requirements for its federal award. Effect: The finding resulted in a significant deficiency issued on compliance for major programs. The vendor was subsequently searched and found not to be suspended or debarred. Questioned costs: None. Context: The Organization utilized one vendor in connection with all costs for the major program. Due to the prior use and history with the vendor, the Organization did not perform a search for suspension or debarment on the vendor despite using the vendor for a federal award. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization review the most recent Compliance Supplement, which outlines compliance requirements for several of its federal awards. We encourage the Organization to monitor for any updates to the Compliance Supplement annually. Views of responsible officials: Management agrees with the finding. See corrective action plan.
To address the deficiency in procurement processes, particularly the lack of suspension and debarment checks, management will update the procurement policies to require a suspension/debarment verification before engaging any vendor for federal award funds. This verification process, conducted through the System for Award Management (SAM), has been embedded as a mandatory step in the vendor onboarding workflow. Training sessions will be held to educate staff on compliance requirements under the Uniform Guidance, emphasizing the importance of these checks in safeguarding federal funds. Additionally, a compliance tracker will be implemented to document and monitor the completion of suspension and debarment verifications for all federal fund vendors. To ensure ongoing adherence, a quarterly compliance review will be conducted by the procurement and finance teams. Oversight of these corrective actions has been assigned to Dorian Davis, Corporate Controller and Sylvia Gicheru, Assistant Controller with all measures in place by March 31, 2025.
FAC accepted this audit on December 19, 2023 — management decision was due June 19, 2024.
FAC accepted this audit on November 21, 2022 — management decision was due May 21, 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on January 18, 2022 — management decision was due July 18, 2022.
FAC accepted this audit on January 13, 2021 — management decision was due July 13, 2021.
FAC accepted this audit on November 19, 2019 — management decision was due May 19, 2020.
FAC accepted this audit on December 6, 2018 — management decision was due June 6, 2019.
FAC accepted this audit on December 10, 2017 — management decision was due June 10, 2018.
FAC accepted this audit on December 13, 2016 — management decision was due June 13, 2017.
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 Virginia →
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.
