1 / 21

HUD OIG Audit Survey

HUD OIG Audit Survey. How Did This Start?. 2017 September County releases RFP for first time in compliance with OMB Super Circular 2 CFR § 110 County announces decision not to pay indirect costs County meets with all subrecipients including People Working Cooperatively (PWC).

noelk
Download Presentation

HUD OIG Audit Survey

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. HUD OIG Audit Survey

  2. How Did This Start? • 2017 • September • County releases RFP for first time in compliance with OMB Super Circular 2 CFR § 110 • County announces decision not to pay indirect costs • County meets with all subrecipients including People Working Cooperatively (PWC)

  3. How Did This Start? • 2017 • October • PWC contacts HUD about indirect cost rate with DOE • HUD says County does not have to follow it* • HUD requests contract from County • HUD Columbus has concerns about labor rate and lobbying expenses *corrected since then – 2 CFR§200.331

  4. Chinese Wall • 2017 • November – County monitors PWC, finds issues • December – 2018 RFP recommendations made • 2018 • January 13 – RFP funding awards made • January 15 – County issues monitoring letter to PWC

  5. OIG Comes to Town • 2018 • January 16 - Areas of Concern letter via email • January 29 - Opening Conference via phone • February to April – OIG on-site at County and PWC • February to July – Emails soliciting information • *All documents and communication with OIG were confidential until final report was released

  6. OIG Results • 2018 • July 24 - Survey Results Meeting - OIG elects not to expand audit survey to full audit • July 31 – Survey Results Presentation • August 30 - Discussion Draft Audit Report • September 6 - Exit Conference • September 27 - Final Audit Report Issued

  7. Post Audit Steps • 2018 • November 28 – County Response to HUD Columbus • 2019 • March 1 - HUD Columbus Deadline to OIG • May 1 - Management Decision Letter • July 30 - Corrective Actions Response Due

  8. Scope of Audit Survey • Review subrecipient contract, invoices, work orders, source documentation, etc. • Statistically significant sample of 23 jobs • Covered 4/1/15 to 11/30/17 • Concerns over labor rate and lobbying expenses

  9. Summary of Issues • Labor rate ($48) paid by County more than paid to staff • 4% Mark up added to materials and services • Indirect Costs included lobbying • Indirect costs included unrelated expenses • Income verification not current • Verification of Disability not available • Program income not deducted from invoices • Invoice discrepancies • 20% indirect costs on overpayments • Policies and Procedures needed for these issues

  10. Repayment of Funds • Seven (7) recommendations were closed – County has paid $22,860

  11. Policies & Procedures • Eight (8) recommendations require the County to submit policies and procedures to HUD for review and approval • County is reviewing and updating these policies and procedures • Hamilton County Prosecutor’s Office (HCPO) will review as completed and submit to HUD

  12. Additional Repayment • One (1) recommendation requires County to review and document the following information for 85 work orders selected by the OIG: • The address and job number for each job; • Employees who worked on each job; • The date and number of hours worked the employees worked on each job; • The hourly rate for each employee that worked on each job; • The corporations fringe rate; • The combined hourly and fringe rate for each employee for each job; • Labor billed by PWC and paid by County at $47.75 per hour; • The actual labor costs for each employee for each job; and • Difference between actual labor paid by PWC and labor amount paid by County; and associated indirect costs.

  13. Additional Repayment • County hiring forensic accounting firm to complete task • HUD will validate the labor data for these 85 jobs and project amount due for 1,640 jobs • Indirect costs will be added to labor overpayment • Anticipated overpayment between $300,000 and $500,000

  14. Next Steps • 1 to 3 years for repayment to HUD • Likely to implement claw back provision in contract to get money from subrecipient • Payments to HUD will occur as those repayments are received • Assume there will be litigation • No media coverage to date

  15. Tips • Involve your city/county attorney as soon as possible • Always have a third person on a call or in the room • Make notes during every meeting – send email to OIG to confirm anything that was not put into writing

  16. Tips • Use executive session if available in your state – always potential for litigation when it comes to corrective actions • Before threat of audit, review contracts, policies & procedures and invoicing (now!) • Keep good communication, to let the OIG know of improvements you are already implementing

  17. Document, Document, Document.

  18. 2019 Emergency Home Repairs • PWC attorney raised Q’s about indirect costs in OMB Super Circular 2 CFR § 200.331 • County prosecutor and staff determined County must follow DOE fringe rate of 44.97% and indirect cost rate of 37.79% • Advisory Committee recommended not funding them • Commissioners agreed not to fund - set aside $300K • County managing 5 RFQ’s process for August 1

  19. Joy PiersonCommunity Development Administrator(513) 946-8234

  20. Summary of Recommendations

  21. Summary of Recommendations (continued)

More Related