EIN: 550911898
UEI: JNAJTN8L1SA4
Audited by: Mt. View CPAs
Oversight agency: 93 [Department of Health and Human Services]
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 May 28, 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 November 28, 2026 (80 days from today).
What is a management decision? →Management engaged its auditors to perform a program specific audit while receiving R&D awards from multiple federal agencies and in advance of obtaining approval from the awarding agencies. Cause: Management has difficulty receiving responses from the grant managers of their federal awards and as such, was unable to obtain approval to perform a program-specific audit as of the completion of the audit. Effect: The program-specific audit may be rejected by the federal grant authorities. Recommendation: We recommend that management engage its auditors to perform a full single audit prior to the filing deadline.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Criteria: If an entity receives awards under only one program (excluding research and development (R&D)), and the program’s laws, regulations, or grant agreements do not require a financial statement audit, the entity has the alternative of having an audit made of the one program in accordance with that program’s audit requirements (e.g., a program-specific audit) instead of a Single Audit (2 CFR 200.501(c)). For R&D, a program–specific audit may be elected if all awards expended were received from the same federal agency, or the same federal agency and the same pass-through agency, and such entity(ies) approves in advance a program specific audit (2 CFR 200.501(d)). Condition: Management engaged its auditors to perform a program specific audit while receiving R&D awards from multiple federal agencies and in advance of obtaining approval from the awarding agencies. Cause: Management has difficulty receiving responses from the grant managers of their federal awards and as such, was unable to obtain approval to perform a program-specific audit as of the completion of the audit. Effect: The program-specific audit may be rejected by the federal grant authorities. Recommendation: We recommend that management engage its auditors to perform a full single audit prior to the filing deadline.
Company has, despite lack of prior approval, provided program audits to Agencies in prior audits. These audits were accepted by the GAO and Agencies without a requirement for a single audit. Unless otherwise advised directly by a subject Agency, we will continue to submit program audits as proof of compliance. We received guidance from the USDA and HUD that they do not require an audit, and the CDC funding is a contract, therefore not requiring an audit.
Management did not document formal procurement methods used for expenditures over $15,000. Cause: Management has previously worked with several universities and research institutions and established a working relationship with them in years not subject federal audit requirements. Management believes these institutions to be fair and reasonable in cost. Effect: Contracts engaged by management did not promote fair competition and may have resulted in excessive costs. Questioned Costs: Federal award purchases beyond the micro-purchase threshold totaled $261,772. Recommendation: We recommend that management follow and document formal procurement methods for all federal award purchases over $15,000, which may include self-certifying a micro-purchase threshold up to $50,000.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Criteria: Entities may follow informal procurement methods for small purchases less than $15,000 (or $50,000 if self-certified as the micro-purchase threshold). Otherwise, entities must follow formal procurement methods except under very specific circumstances in which the recipient may use a noncompetitive procurement method (2 CFR 200.320). Formal procurement methods are competitive and require public notice. These methods may include sealed bids or proposals. Condition: Management did not document formal procurement methods used for expenditures over $15,000. Cause: Management has previously worked with several universities and research institutions and established a working relationship with them in years not subject federal audit requirements. Management believes these institutions to be fair and reasonable in cost. Effect: Contracts engaged by management did not promote fair competition and may have resulted in excessive costs. Questioned Costs: Federal award purchases beyond the micro-purchase threshold totaled $261,772. Recommendation: We recommend that management follow and document formal procurement methods for all federal award purchases over $15,000, which may include self-certifying a micro-purchase threshold up to $50,000.
We followed 2 CFR 200.320(c)(2). Research expertise is unique and only available from subawardees selected for each specific project. It is a fundamental tenet of research. A competitive bidding process is not envisioned, nor practical when preparing grant submissions. All subawardees and contractors have a written justification and review, along with letters of support in the initial grant application.
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 Washington →
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.
