EIN: 840802918
UEI: YMS3A2ZBEQW8
Data as of August 21, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on August 13, 2025. 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 February 13, 2026, which was (189 days ago).
What is a management decision? →Criteria or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards requires that when a nonfederal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the nonfederal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. This verification may be accomplished by (1) checking the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA) and available at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/, (2) collecting a certification from the entity, or (3) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that entity (2 CFR section 180.300). Condition: During testing of a sample of five vendors subject to the Association’s Suspension and Debarment controls, we noted one instance where there was a lack of evidence that the Association verified that the vendor was not suspended or debarred. Questioned Costs: None. Context: One vendor, out of our sample of five, was found to have no evidence of verification that the vendor was not suspended or debarred. We did later verify that the vendor was not suspended or debarred. Cause: Per discussion with management and the outsourced compliance firm, the Association did verify that the vendor was not suspended or debarred; yet the documentation supporting such verification could not be located. As such, the Association could not demonstrate that verification procedures were performed. Effect: Without maintaining supporting evidence that suspension and debarment procedures were performed over all applicable vendors, the Association cannot support that the federally required procedures were performed and could potentially contract with vendors who are suspended or debarred, causing the Association to be out of compliance with regulations. Repeat Finding: Yes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Association maintain evidence of suspension and debarment procedures to support compliance with federal regulations and to ensure that all potential vendors are not suspended or debarred. Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Association maintain evidence of suspension and debarment procedures to support compliance with federal regulations and to ensure that all potential vendors are not suspended or debarred. Explanation of disagreement with audit finding: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Action taken in response to finding: The Brewers Association will work with their contracted third-party, Bryant Christie Inc., to document verification of good standing prior to vendor selection and claim submission. Name of the contact person responsible for corrective action: Drew Rosanova Planned completion date for corrective action plan: August 2025
2023-001
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations require recipients of federal funds to document the history of procurement transactions, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price. Federal regulations also specific certain procurement methods that recipients must use in certain circumstances. These regulations allow recipients to utilize a noncompetitive procurement method if one or more of the following circumstances apply: (1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold; (2) The item is available only from a single source; (3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; (4) The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non-Federal entity; or (5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. Condition: During our testing, we noted that for seven out of eight procurement transactions tested, the Organization did not have documentation of the history of procurement transaction, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price. Questioned Costs: None Context: The history of procurement transactions, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price, was not documented for seven of eight procurement transactions tested. Cause: The Organization stated that documentation of procurement procedures is not required for certain transactions due to the nature of the transaction based on their internal process. Effect: The Organization may not be in compliance with federal regulations for certain procurement transactions. Repeat Finding: Yes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization revise its procurement process so that procurement procedures apply to all transactions using thresholds and procurement methods specified by federal regulations, and maintain documentation required by such regulations. Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization revise its procurement process so that procurement procedures apply to all transactions using thresholds and procurement methods specified by federal regulations, and maintain documentation required by such regulations. Explanation of disagreement with audit finding: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Action taken in response to finding: The Brewers Association will work with their contracted third-party, Bryant Christie Inc., to document the procurement method followed and maintain documentation required prior to vendor selection and claim submission. Name of the contact person responsible for corrective action: Drew Rosanova Planned completion date for corrective action plan: August 2025
2023-002
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on August 5, 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 February 5, 2025, which was (562 days ago).
What is a management decision? →Criteria or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards requires that when a nonfederal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the nonfederal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. This verification may be accomplished by (1) checking the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA) and available at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/, (2) collecting a certification from the entity, or (3) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that entity (2 CFR section 180.300). Condition: During testing of a sample of five vendors subject to the Association’s Suspension and Debarment controls, we noted three instances where there was a lack of evidence that the Association verified that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Questioned Costs: None. Context: Three vendors, out of our sample of five, were found to have no evidence of verification that the vendor was not suspended or debarred. We did later verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: Per discussion with management and the outsourced compliance firm, the Association did verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred; yet the documentation supporting such verification could not be located. As such, the Association could not demonstrate that verification procedures were performed. Effect: Without maintaining supporting evidence that suspension and debarment procedures were performed over all applicable vendors, the Association cannot support that the federally required procedures were performed and could potentially contract with vendors who are suspended or debarred, causing the Association to be out of compliance with regulations. Repeat Finding: Yes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Association maintain evidence of suspension and debarment procedures to support compliance with federal regulations and to ensure that all potential vendors are not suspended or debarred. Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Foreign Market Development Cluster – Assistance Listing No. 10.601 and 10.618 Recommendation: We recommend that the Association maintain evidence of suspension and debarment procedures to support compliance with federal regulations and to ensure that all potential vendors are not suspended or debarred. Explanation of disagreement with audit finding: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Action taken in response to finding: The Brewers Association will work with their contracted third-party, Bryant Christie Inc., to document verification of good standing prior to vendor selection and claim submission. Name of the contact person responsible for corrective action: Drew Rosanova Planned completion date for corrective action plan: August 2024
2022-001
Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations require recipients of federal funds to document the history of procurement transactions, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price. Federal regulations also specific certain procurement methods that recipients must use in certain circumstances. These regulations allow recipients to utilize a noncompetitive procurement method if one or more of the following circumstances apply: (1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold; (2) The item is available only from a single source; (3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; (4) The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non-Federal entity; or (5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. Condition: During our testing, we noted that for five out of six procurement transactions tested the Organization did not have documentation of the history of procurement transaction, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price. Questioned Costs: None Context: The history of procurement transaction, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price was not documented for five of six procurement transactions tested. Cause: The Organization stated that documentation of procurement procedures is not required for certain transactions due to the nature of the transaction. Effect: The Organization may not be in compliance with federal regulations for certain procurement transactions. Repeat Finding: Yes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization revise its procurement process so that procurement procedures apply to all transactions using thresholds and procurement methods specified by federal regulations, and maintain documentation required by such regulations. Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Foreign Market Development Cluster – Assistance Listing No. 10.601 and 10.618 Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization revise its procurement process so that procurement procedures apply to all transactions using thresholds and procurement methods specified by federal regulations, and maintain documentation required by such regulations. Explanation of disagreement with audit finding: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Action taken in response to finding: The Brewers Association will work with their contracted third-party, Bryant Christie Inc., to document the procurement method followed and maintain documentation required prior to vendor selection and claim submission. Name of the contact person responsible for corrective action: Drew Rosanova Planned completion date for corrective action plan: August 2024
2022-002
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on August 9, 2023. 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 February 9, 2024, which was (924 days ago).
What is a management decision? →2022 ? 001: Suspension and Debarment Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal Program Title: Foreign Market Development Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.601, 10.618 Award Period: January 1, 2022 ? December 31, 2022 Type of Finding: ? Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance Criteria or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Award requires that when a nonfederal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the nonfederal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. This verification may be accomplished by (1) checking the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA) and available at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/, (2) collecting a certification from the entity, or (3) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that entity (2 CFR section 180.300). Condition: During testing of a sample of six vendors subject to the Association?s Suspension and Debarment controls, we noted six instances where there was a lack of evidence that the Association verified that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Questioned Costs: None. Context: Six vendors, out of our sample of six, were found to have no evidence of verification that the vendor was not suspended or debarred. We did later verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Cause: Per discussion with management and the outsourced compliance firm, the Association did verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred; yet, the documentation supporting such verification could not be located. As such, the Association could not demonstrate that verification procedures were performed. Effect: Without maintaining supporting evidence that suspension and debarment procedures were performed over all applicable vendors, the Association cannot support that the federally required procedures were performed and could potentially contract with vendors whom are suspended or debarred, causing the Association to be out of compliance with regulations. Repeat Finding: Yes. Recommendation: We recommend that the Association maintain evidence of suspension and debarment procedures to support compliance with federal regulations and to ensure that all potential vendors are not suspended or debarred. Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
2022-001 Foreign Market Development Cluster ? Assistance Listing No. 10.601 and 10.618 Recommendation: We recommend that the Association maintain evidence of suspension and debarment procedures to support compliance with federal regulations and to ensure that all potential vendors are not suspended or debarred. Explanation of disagreement with audit finding: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Action taken in response to finding: The Brewers Association will work with their contracted third-party, Bryant Christie Inc., to document verification of good standing prior to vendor selection and claim submission. Name of the contact person responsible for corrective action: Drew Rosanova Planned completion date for corrective action plan: August 2023
2021-001
2022 ? 002: Documentation of Procurement Method and Procurement Policy Federal Agency: U.S. Department of Agriculture Federal Program Title: Foreign Market Development Cluster Assistance Listing Number: 10.601, 10.618 Award Period: January 1, 2022 ? December 31, 2022 Type of Finding: ? Material Weakness in Internal Control over Compliance ? Other Matter Criteria or Specific Requirement: Federal regulations require recipients of federal funds to document the history of procurement transactions, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price. Federal regulations also specific certain procurement methods that recipients must use in certain circumstances. These regulations allow recipients to utilize a noncompetitive procurement method if one or more of the following circumstances apply: (1) The acquisition of property or services, the aggregate dollar amount of which does not exceed the micro-purchase threshold; (2) The item is available only from a single source; (3) The public exigency or emergency for the requirement will not permit a delay resulting from publicizing a competitive solicitation; (4) The Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity expressly authorizes a noncompetitive procurement in response to a written request from the non-Federal entity; or (5) After solicitation of a number of sources, competition is determined inadequate. Condition: During our testing, we noted that for four out of seven procurement transactions tested the Organization did not have documentation of the history of procurement transaction, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price. Questioned Costs: NoneContext: The history of procurement transaction, including the rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, basis for contractor selection, and the basis for the contract price was not documented for four of seven procurement transactions tested. Cause: The Organization stated that documentation of procurement procedures are not required for certain transactions due to the nature of the transaction. Effect: The Organization may not be in compliance with federal regulations for certain procurement transactions. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization revise its procurement process so that procurement procedures apply to all transactions using thresholds and procurement methods specified by federal regulations, and maintain documentation required by such regulations. Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
2022-002 Foreign Market Development Cluster ? Assistance Listing No. 10.601 and 10.618 Recommendation: We recommend that the Organization revise its procurement process so that procurement procedures apply to all transactions using thresholds and procurement methods specified by federal regulations, and maintain documentation required by such regulations. Explanation of disagreement with audit finding: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Action taken in response to finding: The Brewers Association will work with their contracted third-party, Bryant Christie Inc., to document verification of good standing prior to vendor selection and claim submission. Name of the contact person responsible for corrective action: Drew Rosanova Planned completion date for corrective action plan: August 2023
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on August 28, 2022. 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 February 28, 2023, which was (1270 days ago).
What is a management decision? →Criteria or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Award requires that when a nonfederal entity enters into a covered transaction with an entity at a lower tier, the nonfederal entity must verify that the entity, as defined in 2 CFR section 180.995 and agency adopting regulations, is not suspended or debarred or otherwise excluded from participating in the transaction. This verification may be accomplished by (1) checking the Excluded Parties List System (EPLS) maintained by the General Services Administration (GSA) and available at https://www.sam.gov/portal/public/SAM/, (2) collecting a certification from the entity, or (3) adding a clause or condition to the covered transaction with that entity (2 CFR section 180.300). Condition: During testing of a sample of six vendors subject to the Association?s Suspension and Debarment controls, we noted six instances where there was a lack of evidence that the Association verified that the vendors were not suspended or debarred. Questioned Costs: None. Context: Six vendors, out of our sample of six, were found to have no evidence of verification that the vendor was not suspended or debarred. We did later verify the vendor was not suspended or debarred. Cause: Per discussion with management and the outsourced compliance firm, the Association did verify that the vendors were not suspended or debarred; yet, the documentation supporting such verification could not be located. As such, the Association could not demonstrate that verification procedures were performed. Effect: Without maintaining supporting evidence that suspension and debarment procedures were performed over all applicable vendors, the Association cannot support that the federally required procedures were performed and could potentially contract with vendors whom are suspended or debarred, causing the Association to be out of compliance with regulations. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Association maintain evidence of suspension and debarment procedures to support compliance with federal regulations and to ensure that all potential vendors are not suspended or debarred. Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Foreign Market Development Cluster ? Assistance Listing No. 10.601 and 10.618 Recommendation: We recommend that the Association maintain evidence of suspension and debarment procedures to support compliance with federal regulations and to ensure that all potential vendors are not suspended or debarred. Explanation of disagreement with audit finding: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Action taken in response to finding: The Brewers Association will work with their contracted third-party, Bryant Christie Inc., to document verification of good standing prior to vendor selection and claim submission. Name of the contact person responsible for corrective action: Drew Rosanova Planned completion date for corrective action plan: August 2022
Criteria or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR 200.303(a) requires that nonfederal entities establish and maintain effective internal control over federal awards that provide reasonable assurance that nonfederal entities are managing federal awards in compliance with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of federal awards. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework?, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 2 CFR 200.303(b) requires that nonfederal entities comply with federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the federal awards. 2 CFR 200.303(c) requires that nonfederal entities evaluate and monitor their compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of federal awards. As a part of maintaining internal controls, the Association should maintain evidence of the existence an occurrence of such controls as required by the Uniform Guidance. Evidence of such controls show that the Association is evaluating and monitoring its compliance with federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of federal awards. Condition: We noted that there was no evidence of review and approval for 1 of 11 reports tested. The Association?s internal control policy states that reports should be reviewed and approved by the Association?s program manager and/or CEO prior to submission. Questioned Costs: None. Context: During testing of a sample of eleven reports, one report was found to have inadequate evidence of approval. Cause: Evidence of formal review and approval of reports is not consistently documented and maintained. Effect: The Association may not be in compliance with its internal control policy and submitted reports could be inaccurate. Repeat Finding: No. Recommendation: We recommend that the Association formalize and adhere to a process for documenting evidence of review and approval of reports. This could be accomplished by requiring signatures and dates of approval by the reviewer. Evidence of such review and approval should be maintained to show that internal controls are in place and functioning in a proper and timely manner. Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
Foreign Market Development Cluster ? Assistance Listing No. 10.601 and 10.618 Recommendation: We recommend that the Association formalize and adhere to a process for documenting evidence of review and approval of reports. This could be accomplished by requiring signatures and dates of approval by the reviewer. Evidence of such review and approval should be maintained to show that internal controls are in place and functioning in a proper and timely manner. Explanation of disagreement with audit finding: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Action taken in response to finding: The Brewers Association will work with their contracted third-party, Bryant Christie Inc., to document review and approval of reports via email. Name of the contact person responsible for corrective action: Drew Rosanova Planned completion date for corrective action plan: August 2022
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on August 19, 2020. 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 February 19, 2021, which was (2009 days ago).
What is a management decision? →Criteria or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Award requires compliance with the provisions of procurement, suspension, and debarment. The Brewers Association (the Association) should have internal controls designed to ensure compliance with those provisions. The requirements that apply to procurement under grants are contained in 2 CFR sections 200.317 through 200.326, program legislation, federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Condition: There are several required elements that are not incorporated into the Brewers Association?s procurement policy. Specifically, the Association?s procurement policy does not include varying levels of procurement as required by 2 CFR 200.320 Methods of Procurement to Be Followed. The procurement policy also does not include language addressing the avoidance of acquiring unnecessary and duplicative items as required by 2 CFR 200.318(d). In addition, the procurement policy also lacks several elements relating to competition as required by 2 CFR 200.319(c)(1) and 2 CFR 200.319(c)(2). In addition, the Association was not able to provide documentation that described the history of procurement transaction as required by 2 CFR 200.318(i), and the Association was not able to provide price or rate quotations obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources for procurements under small purchase procedures as required by 2 CFR 200.320(b). Questioned Costs: None. Context: We reviewed the Association?s procurement policy noting that the policy did not include all elements required by 2 CFR sections 200.317 through 200.326. We also tested six procurement transactions above the small purchase threshold and noted that these transactions lacked the documentation requirement by 2 CFR sections 200.317 through 200.326. Specifically, 2 CFR 200.318(i) requires that the Association must maintain records sufficient to detail the history of procurement. These records must include, but are not necessarily limited to the following: rationale for the method of procurement, selection of contract type, contractor selection or rejection, and the basis for the contract price. Further, 2 CFR 200.320(b) requires that price or rate quotations obtained from an adequate number of qualified sources for procurements under small purchase procedures. We noted five of six sample selections lacked documentation of such price or rate quotations, and one of six sample selections lacked documentation for the justification of the use of the sole source procurement method. Cause: The Association did not update its procurement policy to be in compliance with procurement requirements contained in 2 CFR sections 200.317 through 200.326, and therefore did not maintain documentation required by the Uniform Guidance to support procurement transactions. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) required these new procurement regulations be implemented effective January 1, 2018. Effect: The Association?s procurement policy and internal control over procurement are not in compliance with federal requirements. Recommendation: Brewers Association should review compliance requirements that apply to procurement under grants contained in 2 CFR sections 200.317 through 200.326, program legislation, federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Brewers Association should ensure that its procurement policy is up-to-date, incorporates all required elements described in 2 CFR sections 200.317 through 200.326, and is in compliance with federal regulations. The Association should also retain all documentation supporting procurement transactions as required by 2 CFR sections 200.317 through 200.326. Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
2019-001 Foreign Market Development Cluster ? CFDA No. 10.601 and 10.618 Recommendation: Brewers Association should review compliance requirements that apply to procurement under grants contained in 2 CFR sections 200.317 through 200.326, program legislation, federal awarding agency regulations, and the terms and conditions of the award. Brewers Association should ensure that its procurement policy is up-to-date, incorporates all required elements described in 2 CFR sections 200.317 through 200.326, and is in compliance with federal regulations. The Association should also retain all documentation supporting procurement transactions as required by 2 CFR sections 200.317 through 200.326. Explanation of disagreement with audit finding: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Action taken in response to finding: The Brewers Association worked with their contracted third-party, Bryant Christie Inc., to document and comply with all procurement requirements. The Brewers Association and Bryant Christie Inc. have updated the procurement policy to be in compliance with the regulation and have submitted to the USDA for Market Access Program approval. Name of the contact person responsible for corrective action: Drew Rosanova Planned completion date for corrective action plan: January 2020
2018-001
Criteria or Specific Requirement: 2 CFR 200.303(a) requires that non-federal entities establish and maintain effective internal control over Federal awards that provide reasonable assurance that non-federal entities are managing Federal awards in compliance with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. These internal controls should be in compliance with guidance in ?Standards for Internal Control in the Federal Government? issued by the Comptroller General of the United States or the ?Internal Control Integrated Framework?, issued by the Committee of Sponsoring Organizations of the Treadway Commission (COSO). 2 CFR 200.303(b) requires that non-Federal entities comply with Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. 2 CFR 200.303(c) requires that non-federal entities evaluate and monitor their compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. As a part of maintaining internal controls, the Association should maintain evidence of such controls occurring to show that the Association has internal controls in place as required by the Uniform Guidance and is evaluating and monitoring it?s compliance with Federal statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. Condition: Review and approval of transactions at the Association is typically performed in an informal manner through the transaction coding process. Questioned Costs: None. Context: During testing of a sample of disbursements, one of eleven sample selections did not have evidence of review and approval by an individual other than the initiator. Cause: Review and approval of transactions is not formally documented via signature or initials and date of approval, and evidence of such review and approval is not maintained. Effect: The Association could incur expenses that are outside of the period of performance of the Federal award, or the Association could incur expenses that are not allowable under the Federal award. Recommendation: We recommend that the Association formalize review and approval of transactions, reconciliations, and reports, by requiring signature or initials and date of approval by the reviewer. Evidence of such review and approval should be maintained to show that internal controls are in place and functioning in a proper and timely manner. Views of Responsible Officials: There is no disagreement with the audit finding.
2019-002 Foreign Market Development Cluster ? CFDA No. 10.601 and 10.618 Recommendation: We recommend that the Association formalize review and approval of transactions, reconciliations, and reports, by requiring signature or initials and date of approval by the reviewer. Evidence of such review and approval should be maintained to show that internal controls are in place and functioning in a proper and timely manner. Explanation of disagreement with audit finding: There is no disagreement with the audit finding. Action taken in response to finding: The Brewers Association implemented a digital accounts payable request and approval system to track non-financial approval and finance review and approval prior to payment. Name of the contact person responsible for corrective action: Drew Rosanova Planned completion date for corrective action plan: December 2020
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on September 29, 2019. 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 March 29, 2020, which was (2336 days ago).
What is a management decision? →GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
GSA_MIGRATION
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 compliance status.
Start monitoring →Single Audit Intelligence is an independent tool powered by Federal Audit Clearinghouse data. Not affiliated with GSA, OMB, or any federal agency.