EIN: 850414272
UEI: HLMCBLZY6MY5
Audited by: Beasley, Mitchell & Co.
Oversight agency: 84 [Department of Education]
View federal awards & risk assessment →
Data as of September 2, 2026
Management decision deadline — for entities that funded this organization
The FAC accepted this audit on March 4, 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 4, 2026 (today).
What is a management decision? →FAC accepted this audit on February 20, 2025 — management decision was due August 20, 2025.
FAC accepted this audit on January 8, 2024 — management decision was due July 8, 2024.
During the testing there was an invoice in the amount of $299,271 that was paid of twice during June 2023. The expenditure was submitted for reimbursement from federal funds. The District was notified by the vendor of the double payment while asking to use it as credit against a separate invoice. Criteria: PART 200—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS § 200.303 Internal controls. 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. 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). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. (e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non- Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also § 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Cause: The facilities department submitted the invoice to the finance department for payment at the beginning of June and towards the end of June. The accounts payable clerk bypassed the system error that the invoice number had been entered previously. Questioned costs: $299,271 was the amount of the duplicate payment. The expenditure from the duplicate payment was not reported in the schedule of expenditures in federal awards and was reported as a receivable from the vendor in the financial statements for Fund 24330. Effect or potential effect: Expenditures could be overstated, as well as revenues, if invoices are paid more than once and then also reimbursed. As a result, a receivable and unearned income must be recognized. Recommendation: Training should be given to accounts payable staff regarding the importance system warnings and the need to monitor invoices form the vendors. A tracking system should be implemented for tracking major projects to ensure than invoices are not reported more than once. Invoices should be stamped received upon receipt, marked when applied to a major project, and marked recorded once entered into the accounting system. Management’s response: Executive Director of Finance: Management agrees with this finding. The school district converted to a new financial ERP system as of July 1, 2023. The new ERP system flags any duplicate invoice numbers that maybe entered. The Accounts Payable (A/P) staff will verify if payment has already been made. On occasion, payment requests do not have an invoice number. To prevent duplicate payments, the Accounts Payable staff require original invoices and uses a system generated invoice number, or a will use a manual entry numbering convention to prevent duplicate invoice numbers. The invoice data is entered by an Accounts Payable specialist and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Manager. On occasion, A/P must request corrected invoices from vendors who try and reuse invoice numbers. The A/P Manager reviews invoice numbers during the check run for accuracy. Purchasing and A/P will also periodically review the vendor database for duplicate vendors. For construction projects that list a pay application number instead of an invoice number, A/P will implement a consistent invoice numbering convention to avoid duplicate payments. The A/P specialists will also review the PO payment history prior to processing. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Accounts Payable Manager Corrective action(s) timeline: December 1, 2023
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴2023 – 002 INTERNAL CONTROLS OVER DISBURSEMENTS Significant Deficiency U.S. DEPARTMENTS OF EDUCATION Federal Assistance No. 84.425U COVID-19: ARP - Elementary and Secondary Schools Emergency Relief Passthrough Agency: New Mexico Public Education Department Award Period: July 1, 2022 – June 30, 2023 Allowable Costs/Cost Principles Condition: During the testing there was an invoice in the amount of $299,271 that was paid of twice during June 2023. The expenditure was submitted for reimbursement from federal funds. The District was notified by the vendor of the double payment while asking to use it as credit against a separate invoice. Criteria: PART 200—UNIFORM ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, COST PRINCIPLES, AND AUDIT REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AWARDS § 200.303 Internal controls. 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. 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). (b) Comply with the U.S. Constitution, Federal statutes, regulations, and the terms and conditions of the Federal awards. (c) Evaluate and monitor the non-Federal entity's compliance with statutes, regulations and the terms and conditions of Federal awards. (d) Take prompt action when instances of noncompliance are identified including noncompliance identified in audit findings. (e) Take reasonable measures to safeguard protected personally identifiable information and other information the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity designates as sensitive or the non-Federal entity considers sensitive consistent with applicable Federal, State, local, and tribal laws regarding privacy and responsibility over confidentiality. § 200.403 Factors affecting allowability of costs. Except where otherwise authorized by statute, costs must meet the following general criteria in order to be allowable under Federal awards: (a) Be necessary and reasonable for the performance of the Federal award and be allocable thereto under these principles. (b) Conform to any limitations or exclusions set forth in these principles or in the Federal award as to types or amount of cost items. (c) Be consistent with policies and procedures that apply uniformly to both federally-financed and other activities of the non- Federal entity. (d) Be accorded consistent treatment. A cost may not be assigned to a Federal award as a direct cost if any other cost incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances has been allocated to the Federal award as an indirect cost. (e) Be determined in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles (GAAP), except, for state and local governments and Indian tribes only, as otherwise provided for in this part. (f) Not be included as a cost or used to meet cost sharing or matching requirements of any other federally-financed program in either the current or a prior period. See also § 200.306(b). (g) Be adequately documented. See also § 200.300 through 200.309 of this part. (h) Cost must be incurred during the approved budget period. The Federal awarding agency is authorized, at its discretion, to waive prior written approvals to carry forward unobligated balances to subsequent budget periods pursuant to § 200.308(e)(3). Cause: The facilities department submitted the invoice to the finance department for payment at the beginning of June and towards the end of June. The accounts payable clerk bypassed the system error that the invoice number had been entered previously. Questioned costs: $299,271 was the amount of the duplicate payment. The expenditure from the duplicate payment was not reported in the schedule of expenditures in federal awards and was reported as a receivable from the vendor in the financial statements for Fund 24330. Effect or potential effect: Expenditures could be overstated, as well as revenues, if invoices are paid more than once and then also reimbursed. As a result, a receivable and unearned income must be recognized. Recommendation: Training should be given to accounts payable staff regarding the importance system warnings and the need to monitor invoices form the vendors. A tracking system should be implemented for tracking major projects to ensure than invoices are not reported more than once. Invoices should be stamped received upon receipt, marked when applied to a major project, and marked recorded once entered into the accounting system. Management’s response: Executive Director of Finance: Management agrees with this finding. The school district converted to a new financial ERP system as of July 1, 2023. The new ERP system flags any duplicate invoice numbers that maybe entered. The Accounts Payable (A/P) staff will verify if payment has already been made. On occasion, payment requests do not have an invoice number. To prevent duplicate payments, the Accounts Payable staff require original invoices and uses a system generated invoice number, or a will use a manual entry numbering convention to prevent duplicate invoice numbers. The invoice data is entered by an Accounts Payable specialist and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Manager. On occasion, A/P must request corrected invoices from vendors who try and reuse invoice numbers. The A/P Manager reviews invoice numbers during the check run for accuracy. Purchasing and A/P will also periodically review the vendor database for duplicate vendors. For construction projects that list a pay application number instead of an invoice number, A/P will implement a consistent invoice numbering convention to avoid duplicate payments. The A/P specialists will also review the PO payment history prior to processing. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Accounts Payable Manager Corrective action(s) timeline: December 1, 2023
Executive Director of Finance: Management agrees with this finding. The school district converted to a new financial ERP system as of July 1, 2023. The new ERP system flags any duplicate invoice numbers that maybe entered. The Accounts Payable (A/P) staff will verify if payment has already been made. On occasion, payment requests do not have an invoice number. To prevent duplicate payments, the Accounts Payable staff require original invoices and uses a system generated invoice number, or a will use a manual entry numbering convention to prevent duplicate invoice numbers. The invoice data is entered by an Accounts Payable specialist and reviewed by the Accounts Payable Manager. On occasion, A/P must request corrected invoices from vendors who try and reuse invoice numbers. The A/P Manager reviews invoice numbers during the check run for accuracy. Purchasing and A/P will also periodically review the vendor database for duplicate vendors. For construction projects that list a pay application number instead of an invoice number, A/P will implement a consistent invoice numbering convention to avoid duplicate payments. The A/P specialists will also review the PO payment history prior to processing. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Accounts Payable Manager Corrective action(s) timeline: December 1, 2023
FAC accepted this audit on January 5, 2023 — management decision was due July 5, 2023.
FAC accepted this audit on January 5, 2022 — management decision was due July 5, 2022.
FAC accepted this audit on January 14, 2021 — management decision was due July 14, 2021.
During the year ended June 30, 2020, the District?s nonprogram food sales were $999,547 and the District incurred nonprogram food costs of $1,124,079, a loss of $124,532. The District?s nonprogram food sales were not self-sufficient and were subsidized by the USDA Child Nutrition Cluster. The rate used to determine the meal equivalents was from the original contract and had not been adjusted as had the service charge rates. By the definition of the formula used to determine the meal equivalent rate in the original contract and using the formula inputs with the values available at the time of the contract renewal, the District would have saved approximately $166,900 in payments to the food service management company. This amount would have been sufficient to cover the paid lunch equity deficit. Criteria: PART 210?NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM ?210.14 Resource management. (f) Revenue from nonprogram foods. Beginning July 1, 2011, school food authorities shall ensure that the revenue generated from the sale of nonprogram foods complies with the requirements in this paragraph. (1) Definition of nonprogram foods. For the purposes of this paragraph, nonprogram foods are those foods and beverages: (i) Sold in a participating school other than reimbursable meals and meal supplements; and (ii) Purchased using funds from the nonprofit school food service account. (2) Revenue from nonprogram foods. The proportion of total revenue from the sale of nonprogram foods to total revenue of the school food service account shall be equal to or greater than: (i) The proportion of total food costs associated with obtaining nonprogram foods to (ii) The total costs associated with obtaining program and nonprogram foods from the account. (3) All revenue from the sale of nonprogram foods shall accrue to the nonprofit school food service account of a participating school food authority. OMB Uniform Guidance Compliance Supplement I. Procurement and Suspension and Debarment 3. Cost-Reimbursable Contracts a. Cost-reimbursable contracts awarded by SFAs operating the NSLP, SMP, and SBP, including contracts with cost-reimbursable provisions and solicitation documents prepared to obtain offers of such contracts, must include the following provisions: (1) Allowable costs will be paid from the nonprofit school food service account to the contractor net of all discounts, rebates, and other applicable credits accruing to or received by the contractor or any assignee under the contract, to the extent those credits are allocable to the allowable portion of the costs billed to the SFA. (2) Billing documents submitted by the contractor will either separately identify allowable and unallowable portions of each cost or include only allowable costs and a certification that payment is sought only for such costs. (3) The contractor?s determination of its allowable costs must be made in compliance with applicable departmental and program regulations and the OMB cost principles. (4) The contractor must identify the amount of each discount, rebate, and other applicable credit on bills and invoices presented to the SFA for payment and individually identify the amount as a discount, rebate, or in the case of other applicable credits, the nature of the credit. If approved by the state agency, the SFA may permit the contractor to report this information on a less frequent basis than monthly, but no less frequently than annually. (5) The contractor must identify the method by which it will report discounts, rebates, and other applicable credits allocable to the contract that are not reported prior to conclusion of the contract. (6) The contractor must maintain documentation of costs and discounts, rebates, and other applicable credits, and must furnish such documentation upon request to the SFA, the state agency, or the USDA (7 CFR section 210.21(f)). Questioned costs: The District paid $124,532 of federally reimbursed monies to pay for nonprogram food costs. Collections from nonprogram food sales were $999,547 and the District paid the food service management company $1,124,079 for the delivery of the nonprogram food. The amount paid to the food service management company was based on a contracted fixed rate. Effect of condition: The District had a paid lunch equity deficit and used federal free and reduced food reimbursements from the US Department of Agriculture to subsidize the nonprogram food costs. Cause: The contract with the food service management company, as amended, had a fixed rate for determining the meal equivalents being served in the nonprogram food sales. Based on the calculated meals served, the food service management company charged the District at a set per meal rate. The rate for determining the meal equivalents was less than the rate charged for the meals. This resulted in the District paying the food service management company more for the nonprogram food sales than were being collected from the nonprogram food sales and thereby, creating a paid lunch equity deficit. Recommendation: The District should review food service contracts and annual amendments to ensure the proposed rates will be sufficient for the nonprogram portion of food services to be profitable or break-even. The rates should be scenario tested in order to provide some validation that the nonprogram food costs will be adequately covered with nonprogram food sales. Monitoring should be done on a regular basis to verify that the nonprogram food costs are not being subsidized by federal reimbursements. In the event the nonprogram food revenues are not sufficient to cover the nonprogram food costs, the District should take immediate actions to cover the revenue deficit with non-federal monies and/or raising the prices charged for paid lunches in accordance with National School Lunch Program regulations at 7 CFR 210.14(e). Additionally, billing for services should be segregated between allowable and unallowable costs and provide sufficient detail for the District to analyze services provided and being billed. Management?s response: Since I became the Executive Director of Finance in April 2019 I have been attempting to gain a better understanding of the Food Service contract, billing, and overall operations. To support me in this effort, the Chief Operations Officer (COO) directed me to solicit assistance from a Student Nutrition Consultant. During our consultants review of the original contract she expressed concern regarding the calculation used to convert cash sales into meal equivalents since the original contract was executed in 2017. The District has discussed this issue with the food service management company. Ultimately, the equivalency rate used to convert cash sales into meal equivalents has been adjusted to reflect the original contract definition for the 2020-2021 SY. In addition, the District has implemented new procedures for regular monitoring of the billing for services and the overall operations of the Food Service program. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Executive Director of Finance Corrective action(s) timeline: June 30, 2021.
Show full finding ▾Hide full finding ▴US DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE Pass-Through Agency: New Mexico Department of Public Education USDA Child Nutrition Cluster CFDA: 10.553 & 10.555 Special Tests and Provisions 2020 ? 001 NONPROGRAM FOOD COSTS Significant Deficiency Condition: During the year ended June 30, 2020, the District?s nonprogram food sales were $999,547 and the District incurred nonprogram food costs of $1,124,079, a loss of $124,532. The District?s nonprogram food sales were not self-sufficient and were subsidized by the USDA Child Nutrition Cluster. The rate used to determine the meal equivalents was from the original contract and had not been adjusted as had the service charge rates. By the definition of the formula used to determine the meal equivalent rate in the original contract and using the formula inputs with the values available at the time of the contract renewal, the District would have saved approximately $166,900 in payments to the food service management company. This amount would have been sufficient to cover the paid lunch equity deficit. Criteria: PART 210?NATIONAL SCHOOL LUNCH PROGRAM ?210.14 Resource management. (f) Revenue from nonprogram foods. Beginning July 1, 2011, school food authorities shall ensure that the revenue generated from the sale of nonprogram foods complies with the requirements in this paragraph. (1) Definition of nonprogram foods. For the purposes of this paragraph, nonprogram foods are those foods and beverages: (i) Sold in a participating school other than reimbursable meals and meal supplements; and (ii) Purchased using funds from the nonprofit school food service account. (2) Revenue from nonprogram foods. The proportion of total revenue from the sale of nonprogram foods to total revenue of the school food service account shall be equal to or greater than: (i) The proportion of total food costs associated with obtaining nonprogram foods to (ii) The total costs associated with obtaining program and nonprogram foods from the account. (3) All revenue from the sale of nonprogram foods shall accrue to the nonprofit school food service account of a participating school food authority. OMB Uniform Guidance Compliance Supplement I. Procurement and Suspension and Debarment 3. Cost-Reimbursable Contracts a. Cost-reimbursable contracts awarded by SFAs operating the NSLP, SMP, and SBP, including contracts with cost-reimbursable provisions and solicitation documents prepared to obtain offers of such contracts, must include the following provisions: (1) Allowable costs will be paid from the nonprofit school food service account to the contractor net of all discounts, rebates, and other applicable credits accruing to or received by the contractor or any assignee under the contract, to the extent those credits are allocable to the allowable portion of the costs billed to the SFA. (2) Billing documents submitted by the contractor will either separately identify allowable and unallowable portions of each cost or include only allowable costs and a certification that payment is sought only for such costs. (3) The contractor?s determination of its allowable costs must be made in compliance with applicable departmental and program regulations and the OMB cost principles. (4) The contractor must identify the amount of each discount, rebate, and other applicable credit on bills and invoices presented to the SFA for payment and individually identify the amount as a discount, rebate, or in the case of other applicable credits, the nature of the credit. If approved by the state agency, the SFA may permit the contractor to report this information on a less frequent basis than monthly, but no less frequently than annually. (5) The contractor must identify the method by which it will report discounts, rebates, and other applicable credits allocable to the contract that are not reported prior to conclusion of the contract. (6) The contractor must maintain documentation of costs and discounts, rebates, and other applicable credits, and must furnish such documentation upon request to the SFA, the state agency, or the USDA (7 CFR section 210.21(f)). Questioned costs: The District paid $124,532 of federally reimbursed monies to pay for nonprogram food costs. Collections from nonprogram food sales were $999,547 and the District paid the food service management company $1,124,079 for the delivery of the nonprogram food. The amount paid to the food service management company was based on a contracted fixed rate. Effect of condition: The District had a paid lunch equity deficit and used federal free and reduced food reimbursements from the US Department of Agriculture to subsidize the nonprogram food costs. Cause: The contract with the food service management company, as amended, had a fixed rate for determining the meal equivalents being served in the nonprogram food sales. Based on the calculated meals served, the food service management company charged the District at a set per meal rate. The rate for determining the meal equivalents was less than the rate charged for the meals. This resulted in the District paying the food service management company more for the nonprogram food sales than were being collected from the nonprogram food sales and thereby, creating a paid lunch equity deficit. Recommendation: The District should review food service contracts and annual amendments to ensure the proposed rates will be sufficient for the nonprogram portion of food services to be profitable or break-even. The rates should be scenario tested in order to provide some validation that the nonprogram food costs will be adequately covered with nonprogram food sales. Monitoring should be done on a regular basis to verify that the nonprogram food costs are not being subsidized by federal reimbursements. In the event the nonprogram food revenues are not sufficient to cover the nonprogram food costs, the District should take immediate actions to cover the revenue deficit with non-federal monies and/or raising the prices charged for paid lunches in accordance with National School Lunch Program regulations at 7 CFR 210.14(e). Additionally, billing for services should be segregated between allowable and unallowable costs and provide sufficient detail for the District to analyze services provided and being billed. Management?s response: Since I became the Executive Director of Finance in April 2019 I have been attempting to gain a better understanding of the Food Service contract, billing, and overall operations. To support me in this effort, the Chief Operations Officer (COO) directed me to solicit assistance from a Student Nutrition Consultant. During our consultants review of the original contract she expressed concern regarding the calculation used to convert cash sales into meal equivalents since the original contract was executed in 2017. The District has discussed this issue with the food service management company. Ultimately, the equivalency rate used to convert cash sales into meal equivalents has been adjusted to reflect the original contract definition for the 2020-2021 SY. In addition, the District has implemented new procedures for regular monitoring of the billing for services and the overall operations of the Food Service program. Responsible party(ies) for corrective action(s): Executive Director of Finance Corrective action(s) timeline: June 30, 2021.
Description of Finding: During the year ended June 30, 2020, the District?s nonprogram food sales were $999,547 and the District incurred nonprogram food costs of $1,124,079, a loss of $124,532. The District?s nonprogram food sales were not self-sufficient and were subsidized by the USDA Child Nutrition Cluster. The rate used to determine the meal equivalents was from the original contract and had not been adjusted as had the service charge rates. By the definition of the formula used to determine the meal equivalent rate in the original contract and using the formula inputs with the values available at the time of the contract renewal, the District would have saved approximately $166,900 in payments to the food service management company. This amount would have been sufficient to cover the paid lunch equity deficit. Did you, as the Recipient agree with this finding? ? Yes ? No If No, provide an explanation and specific reasons for the non-concurrence. Planned Corrective Action (Segregate the proposed plan by milestones, assigning a completion date for each milestone): Since I became the Executive Director of Finance in April 2019 I have been attempting to gain a better understanding of the Food Service contract, billing, and overall operations. To support me in this effort, the Chief Operations Officer (COO) directed me to solicit assistance from a Student Nutrition Consultant. During our consultants review of the original contract she expressed concern regarding the calculation used to convert cash sales into meal equivalents since the original contract was executed in 2017. The District has discussed this issue with the food service management company. Ultimately, the equivalency rate used to convert cash sales into meal equivalents has been adjusted to reflect the original contract definition for the 2020-2021 SY. In addition, the District has implemented new procedures for regular monitoring of the billing for services and the overall operations of the Food Service program. Position of Individual Responsible for the Implementation of the Corrective Action Plan: Executive Director of Finance Due Date for the Complete the Implementation of the Corrective Action Plan: June 30, 2021
FAC accepted this audit on November 19, 2019 — management decision was due May 19, 2020.
FAC accepted this audit on March 10, 2019 — management decision was due September 10, 2019.
FAC accepted this audit on February 7, 2018 — management decision was due August 7, 2018.
FAC accepted this audit on January 16, 2017 — management decision was due July 16, 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 New Mexico →
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.
