EIN: 616000797
UEI: ULQGMG6LNNT8
Audited by: Allison Ball, Auditor of Public Accounts
Oversight agency: 21 [Department of the Treasury]
View federal awards & risk assessment →
Data as of August 28, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on June 4, 2024. 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 December 4, 2024 (633 days ago).
What is a management decision? →FAC accepted this audit on March 1, 2023 — management decision was due September 1, 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on March 14, 2022 — management decision was due September 14, 2022.
Federal Program: Assistance Listing #12.U02 Section 531 Program Award Number and Year: 2021 Name of Federal Agency and Pass-Through Agency: U.S. Department of Defense Passed-Through U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Compliance Requirements: Special Tests and Provisions Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency Amount of Questioned Cost: None Opinion Modification: No The fiscal court failed to implement adequate monitoring controls over the Special Tests and Provisions - Davis Bacon requirement. The fiscal court contracted with a third party that oversaw the planning, design, inspection services, environmental services, and construction administration for the project. The contractor did not submit weekly, when work was performed, a copy of the payroll and a statement of compliance to the fiscal court. The fiscal court did not monitor the third party contractor as required to ensure that the federal requirement was met. During single audit testing, auditors obtained certified payroll records from the contractor and concluded that Davis Bacon wages were paid for the project. The county stated that the grant did not require the payroll documentation within the reimbursement requests, thus the reason the county was not monitoring the payroll for the Davis Bacon requirement. When grantees do not monitor federal grant requirements, they cannot ensure that federal grant compliance requirements are adhered to. This could result in noncompliance with the federal grant agreement and affect the county?s ability to receive federal funds in the future Per the grant contract Article I ? Definitions I, ?The term ?sufficient invoice? shall mean documentation provided by the Non-Federal Sponsors containing the following: (1) a written certification by the Non-Federal Sponsors to the Government that it has made specified payments to contractors, suppliers, or employees for performance of work in accordance with this Agreement, or a written certification by the Non-Federal Sponsors to the Government that it has received bills from contractors, suppliers, or employees for performance of work in accordance with this Agreement; (2) copies of all relevant invoices and evidence of such payments or bills received; (3) written identification of such costs that have been paid with Federal program funds and a copy of the written verification from the Federal agency that provided the funds; and (4) a written request for reimbursement for the amount of such specified payments or bills received.? Per the grant contract Article II ? Obligation of the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsors C-4, ?In performance of all work for the Project, the Non-Federal Sponsors must comply with applicable Federal labor laws covering non-Federal construction, including, but not limited to, 40 U.S.C 3141-3148 and 40 U.S.C 3701-3708 (labor standards originally enacted as the Davis-Bacon Act, the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act). Notwithstanding any other provision of this agreement, inclusion of costs for construction in total project costs may be withheld, in whole or in part, as a result of the Non-Federal Sponsors? failure to comply with their obligations under these laws.? Uniform Guidance 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.? According to 29 CFR part 5 ?non-federal entities shall include in their construction contracts subject to the Wage Rate Requirements a provision that the contractor or subcontractor comply with those requirements and the Department of Labor (DOL) regulations. This includes a requirement for the contractor or subcontractor to submit to the non-federal entity weekly, for each week in which any contract work is performed, a copy of the payroll and a statement of compliance (certified payroll).? We recommend the fiscal court implement adequate monitoring controls and obtain certified payroll records to ensure compliance with Davis Bacon compliance requirement. Also, we recommend the fiscal court ensure compliance with the federal grant agreement requirements and with applicable federal, state, and local laws.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Federal Program: Assistance Listing #12.U02 Section 531 Program Award Number and Year: 2021 Name of Federal Agency and Pass-Through Agency: U.S. Department of Defense Passed-Through U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Compliance Requirements: Special Tests and Provisions Type of Finding: Significant Deficiency Amount of Questioned Cost: None Opinion Modification: No The fiscal court failed to implement adequate monitoring controls over the Special Tests and Provisions - Davis Bacon requirement. The fiscal court contracted with a third party that oversaw the planning, design, inspection services, environmental services, and construction administration for the project. The contractor did not submit weekly, when work was performed, a copy of the payroll and a statement of compliance to the fiscal court. The fiscal court did not monitor the third party contractor as required to ensure that the federal requirement was met. During single audit testing, auditors obtained certified payroll records from the contractor and concluded that Davis Bacon wages were paid for the project. The county stated that the grant did not require the payroll documentation within the reimbursement requests, thus the reason the county was not monitoring the payroll for the Davis Bacon requirement. When grantees do not monitor federal grant requirements, they cannot ensure that federal grant compliance requirements are adhered to. This could result in noncompliance with the federal grant agreement and affect the county?s ability to receive federal funds in the future Per the grant contract Article I ? Definitions I, ?The term ?sufficient invoice? shall mean documentation provided by the Non-Federal Sponsors containing the following: (1) a written certification by the Non-Federal Sponsors to the Government that it has made specified payments to contractors, suppliers, or employees for performance of work in accordance with this Agreement, or a written certification by the Non-Federal Sponsors to the Government that it has received bills from contractors, suppliers, or employees for performance of work in accordance with this Agreement; (2) copies of all relevant invoices and evidence of such payments or bills received; (3) written identification of such costs that have been paid with Federal program funds and a copy of the written verification from the Federal agency that provided the funds; and (4) a written request for reimbursement for the amount of such specified payments or bills received.? Per the grant contract Article II ? Obligation of the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsors C-4, ?In performance of all work for the Project, the Non-Federal Sponsors must comply with applicable Federal labor laws covering non-Federal construction, including, but not limited to, 40 U.S.C 3141-3148 and 40 U.S.C 3701-3708 (labor standards originally enacted as the Davis-Bacon Act, the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act, and the Copeland Anti-Kickback Act). Notwithstanding any other provision of this agreement, inclusion of costs for construction in total project costs may be withheld, in whole or in part, as a result of the Non-Federal Sponsors? failure to comply with their obligations under these laws.? Uniform Guidance 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.? According to 29 CFR part 5 ?non-federal entities shall include in their construction contracts subject to the Wage Rate Requirements a provision that the contractor or subcontractor comply with those requirements and the Department of Labor (DOL) regulations. This includes a requirement for the contractor or subcontractor to submit to the non-federal entity weekly, for each week in which any contract work is performed, a copy of the payroll and a statement of compliance (certified payroll).? We recommend the fiscal court implement adequate monitoring controls and obtain certified payroll records to ensure compliance with Davis Bacon compliance requirement. Also, we recommend the fiscal court ensure compliance with the federal grant agreement requirements and with applicable federal, state, and local laws.
Prepared by: County Judge Executive Date Prepared: 1/21/22 Person Responsible for Corrective Action Plan: Third Party Contractors/Grant Administrators, Finance Officer, County Judge Executive, Treasurer Anticipated Completion Date: Immediate Official's Response: See Attached County Judge/Executive?s Response: Going forward, any vendor participating in a project that must meet the Davis Bacon requirement will be required to submit weekly certified payrolls to any third party contractor overseeing the project, as well as with their pay estimates so the county can monitor the requirement has been met. As the comment mentions above, certified payroll records were received from the contractor and Davis Bacon wages were paid for the project.
FAC accepted this audit on September 2, 2021 — management decision was due March 2, 2022.
FAC accepted this audit on February 18, 2019 — management decision was due August 18, 2019.
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.
Track your findings and corrective action plans across audit cycles.
Start tracking findings →Monitor subrecipient audit findings and filing records.
Start monitoring →© 2026 Single Audit Intelligence. All data is public domain.
