Upload
others
View
17
Download
0
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
1
1
Recent Audit and OMB DevelopmentsMichael Brustein, Esq.
Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC
Spring 2012 Forum
2
Recent Audit Resolution Developments1. Shift of Focus from Compliance to Results
2. ED Monitoring – “Active Engagement”
3. Reshaping Policies without Congressional Approval
4. OMB Reform Idea Package (RIP)
5. Back Peddling on Linkage of Obligations
3
Compliance Versus Results
Audit Versus Monitoring
Shift of Focus?
2
4
Beltway “Noise”
Program Success Trumps All
5
March 2, 2012 OSEP Announcement:
Monitoring will shift from compliance focus to one driven by results
change in mission?
*OSEP will not conduct verification visits in 2012-2013
6
Will OESE/OPE/OVAE follow?
3
7
What about OIG?Philadelphia
Detroit
Los Angeles
Camden
Houston
Kiryas Joel
8
Camden, NJ Audit March 2012(A02K0014)
Designate Camden as High Risk
Impose Special Conditions
Appoint 3rd Party Servicer
Rescind Camden “Flexibilities” on Schoolwide
9
What about Single Audit?Keep an eye on “Compliance Supplement”
4
10
ED MonitoringOIG Report # I13K0002
http://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/oig/aireports/i13k0002.pdf
11
ED identified Grantees as –“High Risk”
“At Risk”
12
New ED Policy:Discontinue “At Risk’
Formula Grantees: “Active Engagement”
Discretionary Grantees: “Evidence of Risk”
5
13
“Active Engagement” and “Evidence of Risk” not High Risk but requires ED action
14
Of the 50 SEAs and 10 Territories:4 are High Risk
20 are Active Engagement
15
SEAs only formally notified if High Risk not active engagement
6
16
High Risk:
DC
Guam
VIDE
American Samoa
17
Active Engagement:CA BIEMarianas FLGA HI IL LA
MI MS NJNYPAPRTNTX
18
Risk Mitigation for Discretionary GrantsMore Frequent Reviews
On-site Visits
Special Conditions
High Risk Designation
7
19
Reshaping Policies
20
Is Congress on board?
“We Can’t Wait” Crusade!
21
Obama taking advantage of dysfunction in Congress to
reshape policies
8
22
Congress Approval Rating Lower than BP, Paris Hilton, and Hugo Chavez
23
Query
If Congress is supposed to write the law, and ED is supposed to enforce that law, why are so many current policies undertaken without Congressional authority?
24
GEPA defines “regulation” to cover generally applicable rules prescribed by the Secretary.
Sec. 437(a)
9
25
All regulations must contain the statutory cite upon which they are based.
Sec 437(b) of GEPA
26
1965 ESEA“Nothing in this Act shall authorize a federal official to mandate, direct, or control” a state’s, local educational agency’s or school’s curriculum
27
GEPANo provision of any applicable program shall be construed to authorize any federal agency or official to exercise any direction, supervision or control over the curriculum, program of instruction, or selection of instructional materials
10
28
Same provision in “Department of Education Organization Act”
29
Is the current reshaping of policy consistent with ESEA, GEPA, DEOA?
30
RTT funds awarded to States that committed to Common Core State Standards Initiative
11
31
NCLB Waivers contingent on adoption of Common Core Standards or endorsed by institutions of higher education
32
Obama Executive Order 13563
“Regulatory Review”
33“R.I.P”OMB Advance Notice of Proposed Rulemaking
Release of A
dvance N
otice 2/12
Public C
omm
ent
Notice of P
roposed C
hange
Com
ment
Final R
ule
Delayed E
ffective D
ate
7/1/13 Earliest
Effective D
ate
Potential R
escission by
New
Adm
inistration
12
34
Council on Financial Assistance Reform (COFAR)10 members from largest grant making agencies: HHS, AG, ED, Energy, HS, HUD, DOL, DOT
35Expect Revisions to:
1) Cost PrinciplesA-21
A-87
A-122
2) Administrative PrinciplesA-110
A-102
3) Federal Agency Audit ResolutionA-50
4) Single AuditA-133
36
Super CircularIncrease consistency
Decrease complexity
But allows for disparate treatment depending on type of entity
13
37
Will the shifting of Audit Thresholds reduce burden on SEAs?
38
Single Audit Threshold
a) Under $1 million in total federal expenditures:No single audit
Augmented pass-through role
b) Between $1 million and $3 millionMore “focused” single audit
c) Over $3 millionFull single audit
39
“Focused Single Audit” ($1 to $3 Million)
Single auditors to review2 Compliance Requirements
1) Allowable/Unallowable
2) Federal agency determines – but priority on risk of improper payments, or fraud, waste, abuse
(look to Compliance Supplement)
14
40
Can SEA impose additional compliance requirements??
41
“Full Single Audit” Over $3 Million
“Universal Compliance Requirements”1. Allowable Costs2. Eligibility3. Reporting4. Subrecipient Monitoring5. Period of Availability of Federal Funds6. Procurement Practices Comply with
Suspension/Debarment
42
Federal Agencies to identify “non-universal” elements, with focus on preventing fraud, waste, abuse
15
43
CAROICOFAR “encourages” federal agencies to engage in CAROI
Collaborative approach envisioned more as a mediation process between agency and recipient with informal assistance as needed
44
Pass-Through AgenciesAttempt to reduce burden on pass-through (SEA)Federal Agencies to better coordinate review of subrecipient internal controls when 2 or more federal agencies funding
e.g. Philadelphia
45
If entity receives majority of Fed $ directly, not from pass-through, then Federal Agency to conduct follow-up on internal controls
16
46
OMB wants pass-through to focus on programmatic requirements of subawards
47
Increasing Threshold would increase burden on SEA for monitoring and
Limited Scope Audits
???
48
If single audits are effective tool to obtain compliance, fewer audits would
put SEA at greater risk
???
17
49
OMB proposes that single audits be digitized into a searchable database to support analysis of audit results by pass-through entities
50
Indirect CostOMB proposing a mandatory flat indirect cost rate discounted from recipient’s already negotiated rate
51
Indirect CostsOMB – Reduce burden on time associated with indirect cost calculation and negotiation – reduce overall indirect costs, more $ for program
18
52
Indirect CostDiscounted Rates 4 years with minimal documentation, or raised through negotiation with fulldocumentation
53
Time and EffortOMB seeking alternative mechanisms to PARs
Grantee and OIG communities to submit alternative mechanisms
54
Applicant’s Financial RiskOMB recommends Agencies to consider applicant’s financial risk prior to making the award (for non-formula grants)Indicators of RiskPast financial performancePast programmatic performanceInternal controls
19
55
Brief Tutorial on:FIFO – See Appendix
Tydings and Linkage –See Appendix
56
Linking Expenditures to Grant Funds
Do Not Leave $ on the Table!
57
2 Separate Scenarios
A. The difficult one:
Liquidating obligations more than 90 days after the close of the obligation period
B. The easier one:
Linking transactions to a grant period after funds are no longer available for obligation “Roll Forward”
20
58
Late LiquidationsWithin 1st 18 months after the close of the obligation period at discretion of program office
After 1st 18 months, OCFO decision
59
Roll ForwardNot up to program office or OCFO
ED Policy on valid obligation
1. A transaction giving rise to an obligation within period of availability
2. Linking of the transaction with funds available during period of availability
60
Linking can occur long after funds are no longer available for obligation as long as clear documentation that the transaction occurred during the 27-month Tydings period
21
61
Process of “deobligating” and “reobligating” is a valid method of linkage if obligations are timely and the adjustments are part of the normal accounting practice and not manipulative.
- Appeal of State of California
Doc. No. 12(122)83
62
“The legally relevant question is when the obligation arose, not in what account the obligation may have been initially recorded.”
- Appeal of State of California
63
Deobligate/Reobligate
On 7/1/11, obligations could be charged to FY 10 (3 months) FY 11 (15 months) or FY 12 (27 months)
If FY 09 obligations not yet liquidated, and incurred during FY 10 Tydings period, deobligate FY 12, then FY 11, then FY 10
22
64
Remember:Obligations must be during a period of availability
Must be for allowable costs (no supplanting)
Not manipulative to avoid repayment of lapsed funds
65
Questions?
66
This presentation is intended solely to provide general information and does not constitute legal advice or a legal service. This presentation does not create a client-lawyer
relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC and, therefore, carries none of the protections under the D.C. Rules of
Professional Conduct. Attendance at this presentation, a later review of any printed or electronic materials, or any follow-up questions or communications arising out of this presentation with any attorney at Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC does not
create an attorney-client relationship with Brustein & Manasevit, PLLC. You should not take any action based
upon any information in this presentation without first consulting legal counsel familiar with your particular
circumstances.