EIN: 636000803
UEI: C78GWMUA3MP4
Audited by: State of Alabama Department of Examiners of Public Accounts
Oversight agency: 10 [Department of Agriculture]
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 25, 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 December 25, 2026 (117 days from today).
What is a management decision? →FAC accepted this audit on April 24, 2025 — management decision was due October 24, 2025.
FAC accepted this audit on June 24, 2024 — management decision was due December 24, 2024.
FAC accepted this audit on September 27, 2023 — management decision was due March 27, 2024.
The Chilton County Board of Education (the ?Board?) prepared an Indirect Cost Proposal in accordance with Title 2 CFR Part 200, ?Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards?, Subpart E, ?Cost Principles?. The Indirect Cost Proposal was approved by the Alabama Department of Education in accordance with the U. S. Department of Education Delegation Agreement #2019-116. An indirect cost rate of 9.62% was approved in the Indirect Cost Proposal for unrestricted programs. This allowed the Board to charge the unrestricted indirect cost rate of 9.62% against the indirect cost base for the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund, one of the subprograms of the Education Stabilization Fund. The Board did not calculate the indirect cost base in accordance with the Indirect Cost Proposal, and thus charged indirect costs in excess of those allowed by the Indirect Cost Proposal. Controls were not in place to ensure that the indirect cost base and indirect costs charged were calculated correctly. As a result, indirect costs were charged against the ESSER fund in excess of what was allowed by the Indirect Cost Proposal.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴The Chilton County Board of Education (the ?Board?) prepared an Indirect Cost Proposal in accordance with Title 2 CFR Part 200, ?Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards?, Subpart E, ?Cost Principles?. The Indirect Cost Proposal was approved by the Alabama Department of Education in accordance with the U. S. Department of Education Delegation Agreement #2019-116. An indirect cost rate of 9.62% was approved in the Indirect Cost Proposal for unrestricted programs. This allowed the Board to charge the unrestricted indirect cost rate of 9.62% against the indirect cost base for the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund, one of the subprograms of the Education Stabilization Fund. The Board did not calculate the indirect cost base in accordance with the Indirect Cost Proposal, and thus charged indirect costs in excess of those allowed by the Indirect Cost Proposal. Controls were not in place to ensure that the indirect cost base and indirect costs charged were calculated correctly. As a result, indirect costs were charged against the ESSER fund in excess of what was allowed by the Indirect Cost Proposal.
Finding: The Chilton County Board of Education (the "Board") prepared an Indirect Cost Proposal in accordance with Title 2 CFR Part 200, "Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal A wards", Subpart E, "Cost Principles". The Indirect Cost Proposal was approved by the Alabama Department of Education in accordance with the U. S. Department of Education Delegation Agreement #2019-116. An indirect cost rate of 9 .62% was approved in the Indirect Cost Proposal for unrestricted programs. This allowed the Board to charge the unrestricted indirect cost rate of9.62% against the indirect cost base for the Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief (ESSER) Fund, one of the subprograms of the Education Stabilization Fund. The Board did not calculate the indirect cost base in accordance with the Indirect Cost Proposal, and thus charged indirect costs in excess of those allowed by the Indirect Cost Proposal. Controls were not in place to ensure that the indirect cost base and indirect costs charged were calculated correctly. As a result, indirect costs were charged against the ESSER fund in excess of what was allowed by the Indirect Cost Proposal. Recommendation: The Board should implement controls to ensure the indirect cost base and indirect costs charged are calculated correctly. Response/Views: The board agrees with this finding. Corrective Action Planned: Controls have been put in place to ensure the indirect cost base is calculated correctly. Spreadsheet was created to verify allowable expenditures. Calculations will be checked no less than quarterly and verified at fiscal yearend. Anticipated Completion Date: Verified FY23 indirect cost is being calculated correctly in September 2023. Contact Person: Cheri' Miley Wright, Interim CSFO
Title 29, U. S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 5, Sub-Part A Davis Bacon and Related Acts Provisions and Procedures (the ?Davis-Bacon Act?), requires that any construction contract in excess of $2,000 that is funded wholly or in part by federal funds include prevailing wage rate clauses. The laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors to work on construction contracts in excess of $2,000 financed by federal assistance funds must be paid wages not less than those established for locality of project (prevailing wage rates) by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the contractor or subcontractor must submit to the nonfederal entity weekly, for each week in which any contract work is performed, a copy of the payroll and a statement of compliance (certified payrolls). During fiscal year 2022, the Board entered into two construction project contracts that did not include prevailing wage rate clauses. As of September 30, 2022, the Board had expended $266,813.05 of COVID-19 Education Stabilization Funds (Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief) on these projects. The Board did not have controls in place to ensure the Davis-Bacon Act wage rate requirements were included in construction contracts, therefore, the construction project contract was awarded during the fiscal year that did not include prevailing wage rate clauses nor did the contractors submit weekly certified payrolls to the Board. As a result, the Board is not in compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act as it pertains to wage rate requirements.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴Title 29, U. S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 5, Sub-Part A Davis Bacon and Related Acts Provisions and Procedures (the ?Davis-Bacon Act?), requires that any construction contract in excess of $2,000 that is funded wholly or in part by federal funds include prevailing wage rate clauses. The laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors to work on construction contracts in excess of $2,000 financed by federal assistance funds must be paid wages not less than those established for locality of project (prevailing wage rates) by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the contractor or subcontractor must submit to the nonfederal entity weekly, for each week in which any contract work is performed, a copy of the payroll and a statement of compliance (certified payrolls). During fiscal year 2022, the Board entered into two construction project contracts that did not include prevailing wage rate clauses. As of September 30, 2022, the Board had expended $266,813.05 of COVID-19 Education Stabilization Funds (Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief) on these projects. The Board did not have controls in place to ensure the Davis-Bacon Act wage rate requirements were included in construction contracts, therefore, the construction project contract was awarded during the fiscal year that did not include prevailing wage rate clauses nor did the contractors submit weekly certified payrolls to the Board. As a result, the Board is not in compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act as it pertains to wage rate requirements.
Finding: Title 29, U.S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 5, Sub-Part A Davis Bacon and Related Acts Provisions and Procedures (the "Davis-Bacon Act"), requires that any construction contract in excess of$2,000 that is funded wholly or in part by federal funds include prevailing wage rate clauses. The laborers and mechanics employed by contractors or subcontractors to work on construction contracts in excess of $2,000 financed by federal assistance funds must be paid wages not less than those established for locality of project (prevailing wage .. rates) by the Department of Labor (DOL) and the contractor or subcontractor must submit to the nonfederal entity weekly, for each week in which any contract work is performed, a copy of the payroll and a statement of compliance ( certified payrolls). During fiscal year 2022, the Board entered into two construction project contracts that did not include prevailing wage rate clauses. As of September 30, 2022, the Board had expended $266,813.05 of COVID-19 Education Stabilization Funds (Elementary and Secondary School Emergency Relief) on these projects. The Board did not have controls in place to ensure the Davis-Bacon Act wage rate requirements were included in construction contracts, therefore, construction project contracts were awarded during the fiscal year that did not include prevailing wage rate clauses nor did the contractors submit weekly certified payrolls to the Board. As a result, the Board is not in compliance with the Davis-Bacon Act as it pertains to wage rate requirements. Recommendation: The Board should comply with Title 29, U. S. Code of Federal Regulations, Part 5, Sub-Part A Davis Bacon and Related Acts Provisions and Procedures (the "Davis--Bacon Act") when using COVID-19 Education Stabilization Funds (ESSER) to fund construction contracts in excess of $2,000. Response/Views: The board agrees with this finding. Contact Person(s): Cheri' Miley Wright, Interim CSFO/Freddy Smith, Maintenance Supervisor
FAC accepted this audit on December 14, 2022 — management decision was due June 14, 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on December 1, 2021 — management decision was due June 1, 2022.
FAC accepted this audit on August 27, 2020 — management decision was due February 27, 2021.
FAC accepted this audit on November 19, 2019 — management decision was due May 19, 2020.
GSA_MIGRATION
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
FAC accepted this audit on June 5, 2018 — management decision was due December 5, 2018.
FAC accepted this audit on January 8, 2018 — management decision was due July 8, 2018.
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.
