This is historical material, "frozen in time."
The web site is no longer updated and links to external web sites and some internal pages will not work.
This is historical material, "frozen in time."
The web site is no longer updated and links to external web sites and some internal pages will not work.
OFFICE OF MANAGEMENT AND BUDGET
Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations
AGENCY: Office of Management and Budget
ACTION: Final Revision of OMB Circular No. A-133, Final Rescission
of OMB Circular No.
A-128, and Notice of Document Availability of the Provisional Circular A-133 Compliance
Supplement.
SUMMARY: This revision of Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
Circular No. A-133,
re-titled "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations," establishes
uniform audit requirements for non-Federal entities that administer Federal awards and
implements the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, which were signed into law on July 5,
1996 (Public Law 104-156). OMB Circular No. A-128, "Audits of States and Local
Governments," issued in 1985, is rescinded, as a result of the consolidation of audit requirements
under Circular A-133.
One of the more significant revisions is that the threshold for when an entity is required to
have an
audit is raised from $25,000 to $300,000. This will significantly reduce audit costs for many
small
entities. Other significant changes are: a report submission due date which is shortened from 13
to nine months and a report submission process that includes a data collection form and
streamlined filing requirements (§___.320); a new risk-based approach
for major program
determination (§___.520); and, additional guidance for
program-specific audits (§___.235), audit
findings (§___.510), and audit findings follow-up
(§___.315).
This Notice also offers interested parties an opportunity to comment on the provisional
"Circular
A-133 Compliance Supplement," provided as Appendix B to Circular A-133.
However, due to its
length, the provisional "Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement" is not included in this Notice.
See "ADDRESSES" for information about how to obtain a copy.
DATES: The revised Circular is effective [30 days after publication].
Federal agencies shall
adopt the standards set forth in this revised Circular in codified regulations not later than [insert
60 days after publication of this revised Circular in the Federal Register].
The standards set forth in §___.400, which apply directly to Federal
agencies, shall apply to audits
of fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1996, except as otherwise specified in
§___.400(a). The
standards set forth in this Circular which Federal agencies shall apply to non-Federal entities
shall
apply to audits of fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1996, with the exception that
§___.305(b)
applies to audits of fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1998. The requirements of Circular
A-128, although the Circular is rescinded, and the 1990 version of Circular A-133 continue to
apply
for audits of fiscal years beginning on or before June 30, 1996.
All comments on the provisional "Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement" should be in
writing,
and must be received by November 30, 1997. Late comments will be considered to the extent
practicable.
ADDRESSES: A copy of the Circular may be obtained from the OMB
fax information line, 202-395-9068, document number 1133; OMB home page on the Internet
which is currently located at
/OMB, under the captions "OMB Documents," and then
"Grants Management;" or by writing or calling the Office of Administration, Publications Office,
room 2200, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503, telephone (202) 395-7332.
A single copy of the provisional "Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement" may be obtained
from
EOP Publications, Office of Administration, 2200 NEOB, Washington, DC 20503 (telephone
202-395-7332). The provisional
"Circular
A-133 Compliance Supplement" is also available from
the OMB home page.
Comments on the provisional "Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement" should be mailed to
the
Office of Management and Budget, Office of Federal Financial Management, Financial
Standards
and Reporting Branch, Room 6025, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 20503.
Where possible, comments should reference the applicable page numbers. When comments of
five pages or less are sent in by facsimile (fax), they should be faxed to (202) 395-4915.
Electronic mail comments may be submitted via the Internet to RAMSEY_T@A1.EOP.GOV.
Please include the full body of electronic mail comments in the text of the message and not as an
attachment. Please include the name, title, organization, postal address, and E-mail address in
the
text of the message.
To facilitate conversion of the comments into a computer format for analysis, it would be
helpful
if respondents would send a copy of comments on either a 3.5 or 5.25 inch diskette in either
WordPerfect 5.1 or 6.0, WordPerfect for Windows, or ASCII format. When a diskette cannot be
provided, it would be helpful if the comments were printed in pica or an equivalent 10 characters
per inch type on white paper so the document can be easily scanned into a computer
format.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Recipients should
contact their cognizant or
oversight agency for audit, or Federal awarding agency, as may be appropriate in the
circumstances. Subrecipients should contact their pass-through entity. Federal agencies should
contact Sheila O. Conley, Office of Management and Budget, Office of Federal Financial
Management, Financial Standards and Reporting Branch, telephone (202) 395-3993.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
A. Background
The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) received approximately 80 letters providing
approximately 600 individual comments in response to its Federal Register proposal of
November
5, 1996 (61 FR 57232-57249). Letters came
from Federal agencies (including Offices of
Inspectors General), State governments (including State auditors), certified public accountants
(CPAs), internal auditors, non-profit organizations (including colleges and universities),
professional organizations, and others. All comments were considered in developing this final
revision.
The November 5, 1996, Federal Register notice, requested public comment on the
proposed
revision and retitling of Circular A-133, "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit
Organizations," and proposed rescission of Circular A-128, "Audits of States and Local
Governments." Section B presents a summary of the major public comments grouped by subject
and a response to each comment. Other technical amendments were made to conform to
professional auditing standards and to increase clarity and readability.
The November 5, 1996, Federal Register notice also requested comment on two
proposed
information collection requirements contained in the proposed revision to Circular A-133. A
summary of the comments received relating to the proposed information collection requirements
and response to each comment is published in a companion Notice in this Part in today's
Federal Register.
Interested parties may wish to refer to this Notice for a detailed discussion of the following
information collection matters: estimates of reporting burden; necessity of the data collection
form; data collection form duplicates other reported information; data elements in the data
collection form; suggested additional data elements for inclusion in the form; who should sign
the
data collection form for the auditee; level of form's specificity provided in the Circular and
supplemental forms; data collection form sent only to the Federal clearinghouse; applicability of
Freedom of Information Act and other Federal laws; report copies; report submission and
distribution; Federal clearinghouse responsibilities; requirement for the auditor to prepare and
sign
the data collection form; increased costs for auditors to prepare and sign form; retention of audit
workpapers; schedule of expenditures of Federal awards; summary schedule of prior audit
findings; summary of the auditor's results; auditor's schedule of findings and questioned costs;
report due date; and effective date for the data collection form requirement.
Readers of this Notice should especially note the discussion of the requirement for the
auditor to
prepare and sign the data collection form due to its impact on the text of the Circular. Other
matters addressed in the accompanying Notice also resulted in revisions to the text of the
Circular
but are not repeated in this Notice.
B. Public Comments and Responses
Overall Reaction to the Proposed Revision to Circular A-133
Comment: Most commenters overwhelmingly supported the proposed revisions and
believe that
the revisions will greatly increase the efficiency and effectiveness of the single audit process.
Several State auditors commented that the proposed revision to Circular A-133 was similar to
what they expected, particularly in light of the changes included in the Single Audit Act
Amendments of 1996 (1996 Amendments), which were signed into law on July 5, 1996 (Public
Law 104-156). Many commenters were pleased with some of the most significant changes, such
as: (a) the increased threshold that triggers an audit requirement from $25,000 to $300,000; (b)
the risk-based approach to determining major programs; (c) the uniformity of audit requirements
for States, local governments, and non-profit organizations; and, (d) the removal of the current
requirement to report virtually all audit findings and questioned costs. A few commenters
requested that the audit threshold remain at $25,000. Although most commenters supported
these significant revisions, many commenters expressed concern about other proposals included
in
the proposed revision, on which OMB specifically requested public comment, such as the audit
coverage for the allowability of charges to cost pools, and whether the auditor should prepare and
sign the data collection form.
Response: The most significant provisions included in the proposed revision to
Circular A-133
that commenters strongly supported are included in the final revision to Circular A-133. Several
proposals, such as the audit threshold of $300,000, are based in the 1996 Amendments and,
therefore, are adopted in the final Circular. Each of the proposals on which OMB requested
public comment are addressed in the following sections or accompanying Notice. Some of the
comments resulted in changes to the final revision.
Consolidation of Circular A-128 into Circular A-133
Comment: All but one commenter strongly supported the proposal to consolidate
Circular A-128
into Circular A-133, and rescind Circular A-128. Reasons cited include less confusion for
auditees and auditors, uniformity of audit requirements for non-Federal entities that administer
Federal awards, and consistency with concepts included in the 1996 Amendments. One Federal
agency that oversees Indian tribal governments expressed concern about rescinding Circular
A-128 because many Indian tribal governments have not yet submitted audit reports required by
Circular A-128 for audits of fiscal years beginning on or before June 30, 1996.
Response: Pursuant to the 1996 Amendments, which establish uniform audit
requirements for
non-Federal entities that administer Federal awards, the final revision to Circular A-133 extends
its coverage to include State and local governments. In response to the Federal agency's concern
about Indian tribal governments, it should be noted that States, including Indian tribal
governments for purposes of the Circular, and local governments are subject to the requirements
of Circular A-128, issued April 12, 1985, for audits of fiscal years beginning on or before June
30,
1996. Sanctions are provided in Circular A-128 and are available for use by Federal agencies, as
considered necessary, in instances of continued inability or unwillingness to comply with the
requirements of Circular A-128. The rescission of Circular A-128 applies to audits of State and
local governments for fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1996.
Comment: In light of the proposed rescission of Circular A-128, several
commenters requested
that the title of Circular A-133 be expanded to also include Indian tribal governments.
Response: No change was made as a result of these comments. For single audit
purposes, Indian
tribal governments are included under the definition of "State" in Circular A-133 based on the
statutory definition of "State" in the Single Audit Act of 1984 and the 1996 Amendments.
Effective Date
Comment: Several Federal agencies questioned which audit requirements are
effective prior to
codification of the revised Circular in a Federal agency's regulations. Paragraph ten of the
proposed revision states that the standards set forth in the revised Circular shall be adopted by
Federal agencies in codified regulations not later than six months after publication "in the
Federal
Register, so that they apply to audits of fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1996 ... In the
interim
period, until the standards in this Circular are adopted and become applicable, the audit
provisions
of Circular A-128, issued April 12, 1985, and Circular A-133, issued April 22, 1996, shall
continue in effect." Several Federal agencies also requested clarification about how the
requirements of Circular A-133 should be codified in Federal agency regulations.
Response: The sentence regarding the interim period was removed from the revised
Circular. The
1996 Amendments (31 U.S.C. 7505(a)) require that "each Federal agency shall promulgate such
amendments to its regulations as may be necessary to conform such regulations to the
requirements of this chapter and of such guidance [provided by the Director of OMB to
implement the 1996 Amendments]." Federal agencies shall adopt the provisions of the revised
Circular not later than 60 days after publication of the revised Circular in the Federal
Register.
OMB is coordinating an effort to facilitate Federal agency compliance with this adoption
requirement.
Limited Scope Audits for Subrecipients With Federal Awards Expended of Less
Than
$300,000 Annually
Comment: Many commenters requested that further guidance be provided in the
Circular to assist
in determining what types of procedures would qualify as "limited scope audits to monitor
subrecipients."
Response: The 1996 Amendments (31 U.S.C. 7505(b)(1)(A)(ii)) prohibit a
non-Federal entity
from charging to a Federal award the cost of a Circular A-133 audit when the amount of Federal
awards expended is less than $300,000 per year, except that OMB may allow the cost of limited
scope audits to monitor subrecipients. A sentence was added to the final revision of Circular
A-133 (§___.230(b)(2)) which defines limited scope audits to include only agreed-upon
procedures
engagements conducted in accordance with either the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants' (AICPA) generally accepted auditing standards (GAAS) or attestation standards,
that are paid for and arranged by a pass-through entity and only address one or more of the
following types of compliance requirements: activities allowed or unallowed; allowable
costs/cost
principles; eligibility; matching, level of effort, earmarking; and, reporting.
For subrecipients that expend less than $300,000 in Federal awards annually, the cost of any
audits or attestation engagements, other than limited scope audits described in the previous
paragraph, are not allowable costs and, therefore, cannot be charged to any Federal award. This
provision would prohibit the cost of a financial statement audit conducted in accordance with
GAAS or generally accepted government auditing standards (GAGAS) issued by the Comptroller
General of the United States from being charged (by either a pass-through entity or subrecipient)
to Federal awards for a subrecipient that expends less than $300,000 in Federal awards annually.
Subrecipient Monitoring
Comment: One State agency recommended that pass-through entities no longer be
required to
monitor subrecipients expending less than $300,000 in Federal awards. Some pass-through
entities expressed concern that they might be expected to perform audit procedures for each of
their subrecipients not covered by Circular A-133. Some subrecipients stated concern that the
requirement to monitor subrecipients expending under $300,000 in Federal awards could result
in
a return to grant-by-grant auditing of such entities.
Response: The 1996 Amendments (31 U.S.C. 7502(f)(2)(B)) require pass-through
entities to
monitor a subrecipient's use of Federal awards through site visits, limited scope audits, or other
means. In light of the increased threshold that triggers an audit requirement under the Circular to
$300,000 or more in Federal awards expended per year, pass-through entities will need to make
appropriate changes in their agreements with subrecipients to reflect that Circular A-133 audits
will no longer be required for non-Federal entities with total Federal awards expended of less
than
$300,000 annually.
Since pass-through entities are held accountable for Federal awards administered by their
subrecipients, they will also need to review their overall subrecipient monitoring process, and
decide what, if any, additional monitoring procedures may be necessary to ensure subrecipient
compliance. Monitoring procedures, such as on-site visits, reviews of documentation supporting
requests for reimbursement, and limited scope audits (e.g., agreed-upon procedures performed
over eligibility determinations made by subrecipients), can be more targeted and less costly than
a
full Circular A-133 audit. OMB expects pass-through entities to consider various risk factors in
developing subrecipient monitoring procedures, such as the relative size and complexity of the
Federal awards administered by subrecipients, prior experience with each subrecipient, and the
cost-effectiveness of various monitoring procedures.
For example, if a pass-through entity provides a large percentage of the only Federal award it
expends to 10 subrecipients that each expend less than $300,000 in Federal awards annually, then
the pass-through entity should carefully consider the most cost-effective method of monitoring
these Federal awards. Perhaps the majority of this Federal award is provided to two
subrecipients. The pass-through entity might consider conducting site visits at these two
subrecipients and simply reviewing the documentation supporting requests for reimbursement
from the other eight subrecipients. Conversely, if a small percentage of a Federal award is
provided to subrecipients that each expend less than $300,000 in Federal awards, the risk to the
pass-through entity is most likely low and, therefore, the monitoring procedures could be
minimal.
OMB believes that this approach to designing subrecipient monitoring procedures should
result in
cost-effective monitoring and minimize the return to grant-by-grant auditing. This is a matter of
particular importance to OMB and small recipients of Federal awards. Over the next few years,
OMB and Federal agencies will review implementation of subrecipient monitoring procedures by
pass-through entities to determine whether additional guidance or subsequent revisions to the
Circular is warranted in this area.
Audit Coverage for the Allowability of Charges to Cost Pools
Comment: Several Federal auditors and Federal agencies supported the proposed
treatment of
costs charged to cost pools used to support an indirect cost rate or allocated through a
State/local-wide central service cost allocation plan (CAP). Most State auditors, State agencies,
CPAs, and college and university
commenters strongly opposed the proposal stating that the proposed revision appears to: (1)
elevate coverage of indirect costs and CAPs to major program status, which would exceed the
requirements of the 1996 Amendments; (2) require coverage regardless of materiality; (3) violate
the risk-based approach to determining major programs; and, (4) single out indirect costs for
extensive coverage beyond other elements of cost charged to Federal awards. Some commenters
noted logistical difficulties that may result from the timing differences between when costs are
charged to pools used to support an indirect cost rate or CAP; when the plans are submitted and
negotiated; and when indirect costs are actually charged to Federal awards. Several college and
university commenters opposed any additional requirements in this area because they believe that
Federal cost negotiators perform some sort of audit of costs charged to cost pools under Circular
A-21, "Cost Principles for Educational Institutions." Most commenters requested that additional
guidance, either in the Circular or the compliance supplement, be provided to assist auditors in
this area.
Response: The proposed revision included certain phrases that were intended to
clarify the
auditor's responsibility for testing and reporting on the allowability of costs charged to cost pools:
(1) used to support an indirect cost rate, or (2) allocated through a State/local-wide central
service CAP (as fully described in Appendix C of Circular A-87, "Cost Principles for State,
Local
and Indian Tribal Governments," issued May 4, 1995 (60 FR 26484)). The suggested language
was included in the proposed revision to address the timing of when costs charged to
cost pools
used to support an indirect cost rate or allocated through a CAP should be audited. This area
presents unique timing considerations due to the manner in which indirect cost rates and CAPs
are
developed. Indirect cost rates are usually based on costs incurred in a base period and applied
prospectively. Costs allocated through a CAP are typically based on the actual costs incurred in
the current year and also previous years.
OMB did not intend for costs charged to cost pools used to support an indirect cost rate or
allocated through a CAP to be audited every year as a major program regardless of materiality.
As a result of the comments received, the suggested language relating to the treatment of indirect
costs and costs allocated through a CAP was removed from §___.500, §___.505,
and §___.510
of the final revision of Circular A-133.
Although specific mention of indirect costs and costs allocated through a CAP was removed
from
the Circular, this removal does
not diminish the auditor's responsibility for such costs. Accordingly, when indirect costs or
allocated costs have a direct and material effect on any major program, the auditor is responsible
for determining the propriety of costs charged to cost pools that are used to calculate an indirect
cost rate or allocated through a CAP in the year in which the charges affect a major program.
Because it may not be practical to perform such tests retroactively (e.g., when there is a change in
auditors), OMB encourages the auditor to perform tests of costs charged to cost pools during the
period when the actual costs were incurred or during the period when the proposal or plan is
finalized, rather than waiting until the period when the rate was applied or in which the costs
were
allocated. Further guidance relating to audit coverage of indirect costs is provided in the
provisional "Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement."
To illustrate the unique timing considerations relating to indirect costs and the impact on the
audit
process, assume that the actual costs charged to cost pools for 1997 form the basis for the indirect
cost proposal to be submitted in 1998, and the final negotiated indirect cost rate that will be
applied in 1999. Also, assume that indirect costs charged to a major program in 1999 are
material. In this situation, the auditor is strongly encouraged to test actual costs charged to cost
pools during 1997 as part of the 1997 audit, since 1997 is the base year, or as part of the 1998
audit, since 1998 is the year when the proposal will be finalized, submitted, and negotiated. If
the
auditor tests the actual costs charged to the cost pools as part of either the 1997 or 1998 audit (or
can appropriately rely on the work performed by other auditors in these years), then the auditor's
responsibility in 1999 will relate primarily to determining whether the appropriate rate was
applied
in 1999. However, if no prior audit work was done relating to the actual costs charged to cost
pools used to support the rate used to charge a major program in 1999, then the auditor
conducting the 1999 audit would be expected to test such costs, in addition to determining
whether the appropriate rate was applied in 1999.
This area is of particular concern to OMB and Federal cost negotiators. Contrary to the
views
expressed by several commenters, Federal cost negotiators do not typically audit costs charged to
cost pools used to support an indirect cost rate or allocated through a CAP. In the next few
years, OMB and Federal agencies will monitor the coverage of indirect costs under Circular
A-133 audits to determine whether additional guidance or subsequent revisions to the Circular
are
warranted. OMB may also consider if the coverage of indirect costs should be addressed
separately from Circular A-133 audits in the future, possibly as separate engagements using the
AICPA's attestation standards.
Audit Cognizance
Comment: One Federal auditor requested that OMB delay the effective date for the
new method
of determining the cognizant agency for audit for State and local governments because guidance
relating to changing from one cognizant agency to another has not yet been provided. Another
Federal auditor requested that the Circular name that agency as the cognizant agency for audit for
every State based on the large amount of Federal funding provided by that Federal agency to
States. Another Federal auditor opposed having one Federal agency responsible for audit
cognizance for all States. Several State auditors and State agencies requested that they be
permitted to retain their current cognizant agency for audit, and that they have input into future
changes, if any, in audit cognizance.
Response: The primary reason for revising the approach to determining audit
cognizance is to
provide a straightforward method that can be used by the majority of auditees without the
involvement of OMB. The previous policy whereby OMB was responsible for assigning audit
cognizance did not work well, particularly for non-profit organizations. The proposed revision
includes an approach whereby the auditee could readily determine its cognizant or oversight
agency for audit based on which Federal agency provided the predominance of funding.
However, several commenters noted that the proposal may have unintended consequences on
some State and local governments that, under Circular A-128, were previously assigned
cognizant
agencies for audit by OMB in 1986 and have developed strong working relationships with their
cognizant agencies.
In response to the comments received, the Circular was modified to reflect that current
cognizant
agency assignments shall continue in effect for States (including Indian tribal governments) and
local governments that expend more than $25 million a year in Federal awards until fiscal years
beginning after June 30, 2000. Thereafter, the method prescribed in §___.400(a) shall be
used by
State and local governments for determining audit cognizance. This delay should provide
sufficient time to smoothly transition from one Federal agency to another, or to request that OMB
designate a specific cognizant agency for audit assignment, as circumstances warrant. However,
for State and local governments that expend more than $25 million a year in Federal awards but
do not have a currently assigned
cognizant agency for audit, §___.400(a) shall be used to determine audit cognizance
upon the
effective date of the Circular.
OMB expects to designate specific audit cognizance assignments for only a limited number
of
entities. However, if a change in audit cognizance is desired, then auditees are expected to first
work through their Federal awarding agencies to obtain a reassignment. If the request cannot be
adequately resolved among the Federal agencies, then the Federal agencies may contact OMB to
resolve the matter. In response to several commenters, this process will permit auditees to be
involved in future changes in audit cognizance.
The proposal indicates that, in instances in which OMB makes a specific cognizant agency
for
audit assignment, the assignment would be published in the Federal Register. OMB
reconsidered
the necessity of performing this procedure and removed this provision from the final Circular.
However, when specific assignments are made by OMB, OMB will inform the parties involved
(e.g., the auditee and the Federal agencies involved) of the assignment.
Comment: Several Federal agencies and numerous college and university
commenters expressed
strong concern that the cognizant agency determination included in Circular A-133 is not
consistent with Circular A-21, "Cost Principles for Educational Institutions," and could result in
an entity having one cognizant agency for audit purposes and another for indirect cost
negotiation.
Response: No change was made as a result of these comments. Under Circular
A-21, cost
negotiation cognizance for the majority of colleges and universities is currently assigned to either
the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) or the Office of Naval Research (ONR) in
the Department of Defense. OMB believes that it is unnecessary to require these two Federal
agencies to also assume responsibility for audit cognizance for each of the colleges and
universities for which they serve as cost negotiation cognizance. This additional responsibility
for
audit cognizance may impede HHS' or ONR's ability to fulfill their cost negotiation duties. Cost
negotiation cognizance requires a high degree of specialized skills. However, any Federal agency
is capable of performing audit cognizance duties. The responsibilities for audit cognizance
(§___.400(a)) and indirect cost negotiation are different and, therefore, the same Federal
agency
need not be cognizant for both. While OMB expects that the Federal agency responsible for
audit
cognizance and cost negotiation cognizance will be the same in many instances, when they are
different, the Federal agencies involved will be expected to coordinate their efforts to avoid
duplication and disruption to the auditee.
Comment: Clarification was requested by many commenters on how to determine
the
predominant amount of direct funding for purposes of determining the cognizant agency for
audit.
One Federal auditor questioned whether loans and loan guarantees should be considered in the
calculation. Several college and university commenters expressed concern that the term "direct
funding" could be misinterpreted to mean the amount of "awards," rather than "expenditures."
Response: No change was made as a result of these comments. The Circular states
that the
predominant amount of direct funding shall be based upon direct "Federal awards expended" in
the recipient's fiscal year. §___.205 of the final revision addresses the basis for
determining the
amount of Federal awards expended and specifically discusses the treatment of loans and loan
guarantees. §___.205 shall also be followed for purposes of determining the cognizant
agency for
audit.
Required Level of Internal Control Testing
Comment: Four State auditors and one CPA commenter opposed the proposed
requirement for
the auditor to plan the testing of internal control over major programs to support a low assessed
level of control risk. One commenter stated that the Circular assumes that control risk is always
either low or high and that it "does not recognize that control risk may be anywhere on a
continuum from low to high (with "high" indicating ineffective control). When an auditor gains
an understanding of an entity's internal control and determines that the controls are not
ineffective, but are also not sufficient to support a low assessed level of control risk, then no
amount of planning or testing will support a low assessed level of control risk." Two
commenters
recommended that OMB allow the assessment of control risk at a moderate level, unless internal
control is determined to be ineffective.
Response: No change was made as a result of these comments. Many Federal
agencies are
concerned that not enough testing of internal control over major programs is performed as part of
single audits. The President's Council on Integrity and Efficiency's (PCIE) "Study on Improving
the Single Audit Process," issued in September 1993, highlighted the disparity between Federal
agencies' expectations relating to the extent of internal control testing and the actual testing of
internal control performed by auditors. The study identified the lack of clear requirements as a
cause for this deficiency. The study recommended that the Circular "Require the auditor to plan
the internal control testing to perform sufficient tests to support an assessed level of control risk
of low for each program tested as major." OMB believes that the Circular clearly describes the
Federal Government's expectations relating to the coverage of internal control under single
audits,
in terminology that is consistent with professional auditing standards.
It has been a longstanding Federal policy that the recipient of Federal funds is required to
establish
a system of internal control to provide reasonable assurance that it is managing Federal funds in
compliance with applicable laws and regulations. Also, the 1996 Amendments (31 U.S.C.
7502(e)(3)) require the auditor to test controls unless they are deemed to be ineffective.
Therefore, it is reasonable to require the auditor to plan the audit consistent with the level of
internal control which the recipient of Federal funds is required to maintain. Also, the Circular
permits the auditor to not test internal controls which are inadequate and, instead, disclose a
reportable condition (including whether any such condition is a material weakness) and perform
additional tests of compliance as necessary in the auditor's judgment.
Compliance Supplement
Comment: Several State auditors and CPA commenters stated that, while significant
progress was
made to improve the single audit process, it is critically important for OMB to move swiftly to
issue a revised compliance supplement, which is needed to conduct single audits. They
emphasized the importance of finalizing and publishing this document as quickly as possible to
facilitate audits of fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1996 (i.e., the first audits to be conducted
using the revised Circular).
Response: OMB agrees that the compliance supplement is vital to successful
implementation. In
response to these comments, OMB is including a provisional compliance supplement as
Appendix
B to the final revision to Circular A-133. It is being issued at this time in provisional form so
that
it can be used as part of the first audits conducted in accordance with the revised Circular A-133.
However, the provisional status also provides interested parties with the opportunity to comment
on the document and permits OMB to include additional Federal programs in the document in
the
coming months.
The provisional "Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement" is effective for audits of fiscal
years
beginning after June 30, 1996, and supersedes the previously issued compliance supplements
entitled "Compliance Supplement for Single Audits of State and Local Governments," issued in
1990, and "Compliance Supplement for Audits of Institutions of Higher Learning and Other
Non-Profit Institutions," issued in 1991. The definition of the term "compliance supplement" in
§___.105 of the final revision was revised to reflect the compliance supplement included
as
Appendix B to this revised Circular.
Comment: Several State auditors and one CPA requested removal of the
requirement for the
auditor to determine the current compliance requirements when changes were made to the
compliance requirements and the changes are not yet reflected in the compliance supplement.
Response: No change was made as a result of these comments. However, minor
modifications
were made to §___.500(d) to conform the language used in the Circular to the compliance
supplement.
The requirement in §___.500(d)(3) for auditors to consider whether changes were
made in the
compliance requirements included in the compliance supplement reflects current practice, which
is
based on two documents: (1) the PCIE's Position Statement No. 6, titled "Questions and Answers
on Circular A-133," and (2) the AICPA's Audit and Accounting Guide, entitled, "Audits of State
and Local Governmental Units," dated May 1, 1995.
The PCIE document includes a statement that "If there have been changes [to the compliance
requirements included in the compliance supplement], then the auditor should follow the
provisions of the compliance supplements as modified by the changes" (page 14). The AICPA's
Accounting and Auditing Guide (paragraph 23.37) alerts auditors to the fact that compliance
requirements may change over time and that this should be considered in planning tests of
compliance. The provisional "Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement" provides guidance to
auditors regarding the Federal Government's expectations for auditors to perform reasonable
procedures (e.g., inquiry of auditee management, review of applicable contract and grant
agreements) to determine currency of the compliance requirements included in the compliance
supplement.
Transitional Guidance to Implementing the Risk-Based Approach to Determining
Major
Programs
Comment: OMB received several inquiries about whether a Type A program may be
considered
low-risk when it was audited as a major program in accordance with the prior Circular A-133,
issued March 8, 1990, or Circular A-128, issued April 12, 1985, and otherwise met the
requirements in §___.520(c) to be considered as low-risk. Similar inquiries were received
regarding whether single audits performed in accordance with the prior Circular A-133 or
Circular A-128 would satisfy the requirements of §___.530 for an auditee to qualify as a
low-risk
auditee.
Response: The reference in §___.520(c)(1) to the two most recent audit
periods includes audit
periods in which the audit was performed under either Circular A-128 or the 1990 version of
Circular A-133. Therefore, a Type A program which meets the criteria for low-risk under
§___.520(c)(1), based on the results of an audit performed under Circular A-128 or the
1990
version of Circular A-133, may be considered low-risk. Similarly, the requirement in
§___.530
that an auditee meet specified criteria for the preceding two years to be considered a low-risk
auditee applies to audits performed under Circular A-128 or the 1990 version of Circular A-133.
Also, to provide a transition into the risk-based approach, the provision for deviation from
use of
risk criteria provided in §___.520(i) applies to the first year this revision is applicable and
permits
auditors to defer implementation of the risk-based approach for one year.
Risk-Based Approach to Determining Major Programs
Comment: Several State auditors and one State agency requested clarification of the
requirements
for performing risk assessments of Type B programs under §___.520(d) and
§___.520(e)(2).
Many commenters questioned if the Circular requires the auditor to perform annual risk
assessments of each Type B program (above an amount specified in the Circular) and expressed
concern that such a requirement would significantly increase audit costs.
Response: Minor modifications were made to the Circular. Reference to the
percentage of
coverage rule was removed from §___.520(d)(2) of the final revision because, as two
commenters
noted, program risk is not a consideration in selecting programs to meet the percentage of
coverage rule described in §___.520(f). Also, editorial changes were made to
§___.520(d)(2) to
emphasize when risk assessments should be performed.
The final revision (§___.520(d)) requires the auditor to identify Type B programs that
are high-risk and §___.520(e)(2) provides two options for identifying high-risk Type B
programs.
Under Option 1, the auditor would be expected to perform risk assessments of all Type B
programs that exceed the amount specified in §___.520(d)(2), and audit at least one half of
these
high-risk Type B programs as major, unless this number exceeds the number of low-risk Type A
programs identified under §___.520(c) (i.e., the "cap"). In this case, the auditor would be
required to audit as major the same number of high-risk Type B programs as the cap. For
example, a State has ten low-risk Type A programs, and 50 Type B programs above the amount
specified in §___.520(d)(2). Under Option 1, the auditor would be required to perform
risk
assessments of the 50 Type B programs. Assume that the auditor determines that there are 25
high-risk Type B programs. One half of the 25 high-risk Type B programs is 12.5, or 13,
programs. Under Option 1, the auditor would audit 13 of the high-risk Type B programs as
major; however, the cap in this example is ten (i.e., the number of low-risk Type A programs);
therefore, the auditor is only required to audit as major 10 high-risk Type B programs.
Under Option 2, the auditor is only required to audit as major one high-risk Type B program
for
each Type A program identified as low-risk under §___.520(c). Under this option, the
auditor
would not be required to perform risk assessments for any Type B programs when there are no
low-risk Type A programs (i.e., the cap is zero). Continuing with the previous example, under
Option 2, the auditor would perform risk assessments of Type B programs until ten high-risk
Type B programs are identified. The auditor would be required to audit ten high-risk Type B
programs as major in this example. Depending on the order in which risk assessments on Type B
programs are performed, the auditor might only need to perform risk assessments of ten Type B
programs determined to be high-risk, or the auditor may need to perform risk assessments until
ten high-risk programs are identified.
The auditor may choose either Option 1 or 2. There is no requirement to justify the reasons
for
selecting either option. The results under Options 1 and 2 may vary significantly, depending on
the number of low-risk Type A programs and high-risk Type B programs. The auditor is
encouraged to use an approach which provides an opportunity for different high-risk Type B
programs to be audited as major over a period of time.
Comment: OMB received several inquiries about whether large loan and loan
guarantee programs
(that affect the determination of other Type A programs under §___.520(b)(3)) audited as
major
programs may be used for purposes of meeting the percentage of coverage rule
(§___.520(f)).
Response: The amount of Federal awards expended under such loan and loan
guarantee programs
that are audited as major may be used for purposes of meeting the percentage of coverage rule.
In a related matter, programs audited as major under §___.215(c), in which a Federal
agency or
pass-through entity requests and pays for a program to be audited as major, may also be used for
purposes of meeting the percentage of coverage rule (§___.520(f)).
Comment: Several commenters questioned the difference in the number of days of
advance notice
a Federal agency shall provide an auditee when a particular program: (1) cannot be considered a
low-risk Type A program (at least 120 days prior to the auditee's fiscal year end under
§___.520(c)(2)), and (2) must be audited as major(at least 180 days prior to the auditee's
fiscal
year end under §___.215(c)).
Response: For consistency, a change was made to §___.520(c)(2) of the final
revision to require a
Federal agency to inform an auditee at least 180 days prior to the auditee's fiscal year end when a
Federal program cannot be considered a low-risk Type A program.
Biennial Audits
Comment: All State auditors that commented on the proposal relating to biennial
audits strongly
opposed the provision included in §___.530(a) of the proposed revision that prohibits
non-Federal
entities that have biennial audits from qualifying as low-risk auditees. Commenters stated that
this
prohibition was not included in the 1996 Amendments and that the frequency of the audit has no
bearing on the administration of Federal awards. One commenter suggested that, at a minimum,
the cognizant or oversight agency for audit be authorized to permit, on a case-by-case basis,
non-Federal entities that conduct biennial audits to qualify as low-risk auditees.
Response: A change was made to §___.530(a) to permit non-Federal entities
to qualify, on a
case-by-case basis, as low-risk auditees with the approval of the cognizant or oversight agency
for
audit. A change was also made to §___.400(a) of the final revision to add this
responsibility to
the list of cognizant agency for audit responsibilities.
Comment: One commenter inquired about the effective date of the Circular for
biennial periods.
Response: The 1996 Amendments do not specifically address the effective dates for
biennial
audits. OMB interprets the 1996 Amendments to be effective for any biennial periods which
begin after June 30, 1996. As with annual audits, the previously applicable Circulars are in effect
until this final revision is effective. Therefore, an auditee that conducts biennial audits and has a
biennial period beginning on or before June 30, 1996, should apply the provisions of Circular
A-128 (for a State or local government) or Circular A-133, issued March 8, 1990 (for a
non-profit
organization), as applicable. The requirements of this Circular apply to any biennial periods
beginning after June 30, 1996.
Credit Union Loans
Comment: OMB received inquiries about whether loans provided by the National
Credit Union
Administration (NCUA) should be considered Federal awards subject to the requirements of
Circular A-133.
Response: A new paragraph (§___.205(j)) was added to the Circular to
address certain loans
provided by the NCUA. Specifically, loans made from the National Credit Union Share
Insurance
Fund and the Central Liquidity Facility are funded by contributions from insured institutions and
are not considered Federal awards expended under Circular A-133. However, the NCUA
provides loans under other programs, such as the Community Development Revolving Loan
Programs for Credit Unions, which are considered Federal awards for purposes of applying
Circular A-133.
Auditor Communication Regarding Report Distribution
Comment: Several commenters stated that, if the auditor prepares the data collection
form, then
the communication required by §___.500(f) of the proposed revision, whereby the auditor
is
required to notify the auditee of which Federal agencies and pass-through entities are required to
receive a copy of the reporting package, will no longer be necessary.
Response: The proposed revision of Circular A-133 included a requirement for the
auditor to
communicate, preferably in writing, to the auditee which Federal awarding agencies and
pass-through entities are required to receive a copy of the reporting package. This requirement
was
removed. This separate communication is unnecessary because the final Circular
(§___.320(b)(3)) requires the auditor to prepare and sign the portion of the data collection
form
that identifies which Federal agencies are required to receive a copy of the reporting package.
Basis of Accounting
Comment: One State auditor requested that §___.310(a) and
§___.500(b) of the Circular be
revised to include a statement, similar to a provision (paragraph 2.4(a)) included in GAGAS, that
"Financial statement audits also include audits of financial statements prepared in conformity
with
any of several other bases of accounting discussed in the auditing standards issued by the
AICPA." One Federal auditor requested that the Circular require the auditee to use the same
basis of accounting in preparing the schedule of expenditures of Federal awards that is used to
prepare the auditee's financial statements, and noted that this omission has resulted in significant
unreconciled differences on the schedule of expenditures of Federal awards.
Response: No changes were made as a result of these comments. Circular A-133
does not
prescribe the basis of accounting that must be used by auditees to prepare their financial
statements and schedule of expenditures of Federal awards. However, auditees are required to
disclose the basis of accounting and significant accounting policies used in preparing the
financial
statements and schedule of expenditures of Federal awards. The auditor is required to report
(§___.500(b)) whether the financial statements are prepared in accordance with generally
accepted accounting principles (GAAP), and whether the schedule of expenditures of Federal
awards is presented fairly in all material respects in relation to the auditee's financial statements
taken as a whole. The auditee must be able to reconcile amounts presented in the financial
statements to related amounts included in the schedule of expenditures of Federal awards.
Financial Statements
Comment: Several CPAs commented that §___.310(a) of the Circular should
be modified to
recognize that financial statements should reflect the results of operations or changes in
net assets.
Financial statements prepared in accordance with GAAP for certain types of non-Federal entities
reflect changes in net assets rather than results of operations. The commenters suggested that
some auditees and auditors may interpret this section as imposing a requirement that is not
consistent with GAAP.
Response: The Circular (§___.310(a)) was revised to state that financial
statements should reflect
either the results of operations or changes in net assets.
Comment: Several CPAs commented that the requirement included in
§___.310(a) of the Circular
that the financial statements shall be for the same organizational unit that is chosen to meet the
requirements of the Circular, considered in conjunction with §___.500(a), could be
problematic
for certain auditees and may have unintended consequences. The commenters interpreted the
Circular as requiring a direct match between the reporting entity included in the financial
statements and the reporting entity covered by the Circular A-133 audit. The commenters
questioned whether an auditee, that chooses to meet the Circular's requirements through a series
of audits that cover separate departments, agencies, and other organizational units which
expended Federal awards, would be required to issue non-GAAP financial statements that
omitted
the portions of the reporting entity which were separately audited. One commenter requested
guidance in a situation where a local government has its school districts separately audited. If the
local government's financial statements exclude the school districts (which is what the
commenters believe the Circular requires), then the auditor may need to issue a qualified or
adverse opinion on the local government's financial statements, which could raise unnecessary
red
flags and prohibit the auditee from qualifying as a low-risk auditee (§___.530). One State
manager noted that considerably more public entities are included in that State's financial
statement audit than in its state-wide single audit, and that, if the Circular requires such entities
to
be included in the state-wide single audit, this would result in additional audit costs and
complicate the audit process.
Response: §___.310(a) was revised to clarify OMB's expectations in this area.
The revised
Circular provides non-Federal entities an option to meet the audit requirements of the Circular
through a series of audits that cover the non-Federal entity's departments, agencies, and other
organizational units which expended or otherwise administered Federal awards during such fiscal
year. If a non-Federal entity elects this option, then separate financial statements and a schedule
of expenditures of Federal awards shall be prepared for each such department, agency, or other
organizational unit. In these circumstances, a non-Federal entity's organization-wide financial
statements may also include departments, agencies, or other organizational units that have
separate audits and prepare separate financial statements.
In the example provided by the commenter, it would be acceptable for the local government's
financial statements to include the school districts, even though the school districts were not
included in the local government's Circular A-133 audit because a separate Circular A-133 audit
is conducted of the school districts. However, if separate financial statements were not prepared
for the school districts, it would be unacceptable for a separate Circular A-133 audit to be
conducted of the school districts (i.e., the local government's organization-wide financial
statements could not be used as a substitute for separate financial statements for the school
districts).
Schedule of Expenditures of Federal Awards
Comment: One State auditor and one State manager commented that the Circular
should not
prescribe requirements for the schedule of expenditures of Federal awards beyond the current
guidance.
Response: The "current guidance" for presenting the schedule of expenditures of
Federal awards
information was developed and promulgated by the AICPA, and was not specifically prescribed
in
Circulars A-128 and A-133 (1990 original issuance). OMB believes that the minimum
requirements for the schedule should be specified in the Circular (§___.310(b)). Most
respondents to the April 1996 revision of Circular A-133 supported the level of detail reflected in
that revision. A few modifications of the requirements were made in this final revision of
Circular
A-133, in response to specific comments received, as described in the following sections.
Comment: Several CPAs and one State auditor commented that the Circular
requires the auditor
to be responsible for determining major programs and the threshold used to distinguish between
Type A and Type B programs. However, these items are required to be presented in the schedule
of expenditures of Federal awards prepared by the auditee and this requirement may blur the
distinction between information that is the responsibility of the auditor versus the auditee.
Response: The proposed requirements for the schedule of expenditures of Federal
awards to
identify major programs and identify the threshold to distinguish between Type A and Type B
programs(§___.310(b)(3) and (b)(4) of the proposed revision) were removed. However,
the
requirement to report this information was added to §___.505(d) so that this information is
now
required to be included in the auditor's report(s). While not required, some auditees may find it
useful to present this information in the schedule of expenditures of Federal awards.
Comment: Several CPAs recommended that the value of non-cash assistance,
insurance in effect,
and loans and loans guarantees outstanding be required to be included in the schedule of
expenditures of Federal awards. They stated that the option to present this information in a note
to the schedule should be eliminated and that the consistency achieved will improve the
usefulness
of the schedule and facilitate OMB's data collection efforts. One college and university
commenter stated that the requirement to provide this information (either in a note or in the
schedule) was excessive, and that the same information could be obtained from existing Federal
data banks.
Response: A change was made to §___.310(b)(6) as a result of these
comments. The Circular
permits the option of presenting this information either in the schedule of expenditures of Federal
awards or in a note to the schedule; however, an additional sentence was included indicating that
it is preferable to present this information in the schedule. It is important to note that, regardless
of whether this information is presented in a note or in the schedule, this information must be
included in the data collection form. While the requirement to provide such information is not
new, the Federal Government does not currently collect and account for this information in a
systematic manner or data bank (i.e., some Federal agencies track this information and others do
not). A minor addition was made to §___.310(b)(6) to clarify that the amount of insurance
in
effect during the year should be disclosed.
Report Due Date
Comment: Two Federal auditors commented that the requirement included in the
1996
Amendments to submit the reporting package to the Federal clearinghouse "within the earlier of:
30 days after receipt of the auditor's report(s), or ... " is not clearly specified in the proposed
revision.
Response: §___.235(c) and §___.320(a) were modified to incorporate
the report due date
requirements specified in the 1996 Amendments.
Summary Schedule of Prior Audit Findings
Comment: Several State auditors requested guidance on the auditor's responsibility
for
deficiencies noted in prior audit findings for which a management decision was not issued and
which the auditee believes is no longer valid. Specifically, the commenters asked whether the
lack
of a timely management decision is evidence that the Federal awarding agency or pass-through
entity is not concerned about the finding and whether future audits may exclude coverage of the
deficiency that resulted in an audit finding. One State auditor also commented that auditees
should not be given the authority to determine when an audit finding is no longer valid or does
not
warrant further action.
Response: §___.315(b) permits an auditee to determine whether a prior audit
finding is no longer
valid or does not warrant further action. A valid reason for such a determination is that all of the
following have occurred: (1) two years have passed since the audit report in which the finding
occurred was submitted to the Federal clearinghouse, (2) the Federal agency or pass-through
entity is not currently following up with the auditee on the audit finding, and (3) a management
decision was not issued. OMB believes that it is appropriate for the auditee to make this
determination. In addition, the auditor is required by §___.500(e) of the Circular to assess
the
fairness of management's representations in the schedule.
The lack of a management decision for a prior audit finding may provide a basis for the
auditee to
indicate in the summary schedule of prior audit findings that the finding is no longer valid or
does
not warrant further action (provided the two other conditions previously listed are met).
However, the lack of a management decision does not change the scope of audit work or the
auditor's reporting requirements. As an example, if the same deficiency that resulted in a prior
audit finding (for which a management decision was not issued) is discovered by the auditor in
the
current period, the auditor would be required to determine whether the matter met the criteria
provided in §___.510(a) for reporting an audit finding in the auditor's schedule of findings
and
questioned costs.
For the first year a non-Federal entity is audited under this revised Circular, the prior year
report
may not have included the equivalent of a summary schedule of prior audit findings. In these
cases, the auditee may exercise judgment and only include, to the extent practical, audit findings
from before the prior year. Also, the auditee is not expected to include prior findings that would
not have been reported under the criteria provided in §___.510(a).
Auditor's Schedule of Findings and Questioned Costs
Comment: Several State auditors and CPA commenters noted that GAGAS does not
use the term
"findings and questioned costs," and the concept of questioned costs is not discussed in GAGAS.
Commenters requested that OMB clarify the requirement included in §___.505(d)(2) of the
proposed revision.
Response: A change was made to §___.505(d)(2) to replace the term
"findings and questioned
costs" with "findings" so that the final revision requires the auditor's schedule of findings and
questioned costs to include a section that reports any findings relating to the financial statements
which are required to be reported in accordance with GAGAS.
Comment: One State auditor requested that §___.505(a) of the proposed
revision be revised to
permit unqualified opinions on financial statements prepared in accordance with an other
comprehensive basis of accounting.
Response: No change was made as a result of this comment. The 1996
Amendments (31 U.S.C.
7502(e)(1)) require the auditor to "... determine whether the financial statements are presented
fairly in all material respects in conformity with generally accepted accounting principles."
However, it should be noted that neither the 1996 Amendments nor Circular A-133 prescribe the
basis of accounting that must be used by auditees to prepare their financial statements and
schedule of expenditures of Federal awards (i.e., non-GAAP statements are acceptable).
Comment: Two CPAs indicated that the reference to §___.505(d)(2) and (3)
that was included in
§___.505(d)(3)(ii) of the proposed revision is confusing because it refers to certain
schedules that
are supposed to be included as part of the schedule of findings and questioned costs.
Response: A change was made to §___.505(d)(3)(ii) to reflect that the
schedule of findings and
questioned costs is comprised of several sections, rather than multiple schedules.
Audit Findings
Comment: Several Federal auditors, State auditors, and CPAs commented on the
requirement
included in §___.510(a)(1) and (2) of the proposed revision that, for reporting purposes,
audit
findings must be evaluated in relation to a "type of compliance requirement" for a major program
or an audit objective identified in the compliance supplement. Some commenters opposed
requiring the evaluation of an audit finding in relation to an audit objective because they believe
this to be a more constrictive requirement than the currently-used measurement standard, and
others requested clarification of the requirement. Two
commenters suggested that OMB revise this requirement to allow the auditor to make the
determination of reportable conditions and material noncompliance based on the significance of
the compliance requirement and the effect on the program as a whole.
Response: No change was made as a result of these comments. The scope of the
auditor's work
described in §___.500(c) and (d) is required at the major program level. However, for
audit
reporting purposes, the results of the auditor's work must be evaluated against a lower measure.
Specifically, the revised Circular requires the auditor to consider an audit finding in relation to a
type of compliance requirement for a major program or an audit objective identified in the
compliance supplement. The types of compliance requirements and related audit objectives are
included in the provisional "Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement." The auditor is expected
to
determine the types of compliance requirements that could have a direct and material effect on
each major program, and to design and conduct tests necessary to render an opinion on
compliance with respect to each major program. Clearly, auditor judgment must be used in
determining the nature, timing, and extent of audit work to be performed, and in evaluating the
audit results. The purpose of the requirement included in §___.510(a)(1) and (2) is to
advise the
auditor of the criteria against which to measure or evaluate the impact of findings for reporting
purposes.
It is important to note that, under the existing requirements of Circular A-128, the auditor is
required to report all instances of noncompliance and, under the 1990 version of Circular A-133,
the auditor is required to report all but nonmaterial instances of noncompliance. The
requirements for reporting audit findings included in the revised Circular are less burdensome
than
the existing requirements with respect to instances of noncompliance.
Comment: Several commenters requested clarification of the requirement in
§___.510(a)(3) of the
proposed revision to report as an audit finding known questioned costs which are greater than
$10,000 for a type of compliance requirement, particularly with respect to determining the impact
of multiple instances of noncompliance relating to a type of compliance requirement.
Response: No change was made as a result of these comments. However, the
following example
is provided to illustrate the requirements of this provision. Suppose an auditor: (1) determines
that eligibility (which is one of the types of compliance requirements listed in the compliance
supplement) could have a direct and material effect on a major program; (2) designs and
conducts
tests over eligibility relative to this
major program; and, (3) discovers two separate instances of noncompliance, in the amount of
$9000 each, relating to eligibility. The findings involve two different audit objectives relating to
eligibility (which are listed in the compliance supplement): one finding relates to an individual
participant's eligibility, and the other finding relates to the eligibility of a subrecipient. Since
§___.510(a)(3) requires the auditor to report known questioned costs which are greater
than
$10,000 for a type of compliance requirement (which is eligibility in this case), the auditor would
be expected to report these questioned costs of $18,000 as an audit finding. The auditor would
also be expected to consider the impact of these instances of noncompliance when reporting on
compliance on each major program.
Comment: Some Federal agencies strongly object to not requiring known questioned
costs of
$10,000 or less to be reported. Conversely, one State auditor commented that the requirement to
report known questioned costs greater than $10,000 could result in auditors' reporting matters
that are minimal in relation to the size of a particular Federal program (e.g., a very large State
program in which questioned costs of $11,000 is considered immaterial).
Response: No change was made as a result of these comments. OMB believes that
the $10,000
threshold for reporting questioned costs provides an appropriate balance between reporting all
questioned costs (which was previously required for State and local governments) and only
reporting substantial questioned costs.
Comment: One Federal auditor requested that OMB require auditors to report an
estimate of
likely questioned costs when a known or likely questioned cost exceeds $10,000. The
commenter
stated that capturing the amount of likely questioned costs should better enable Federal agencies
to assess the nature and magnitude of questioned costs on particular Federal awards and assist in
prioritizing the resolution of audit findings. The commenter also suggested that OMB encourage
auditors to use statistical means to determine likely questioned costs.
Response: No change was made as a result of this comment. §___.510(a)(3)
requires the auditor
to report known questioned costs which are greater than $10,000, and known questioned costs
when likely questioned costs are greater than $10,000, for a type of compliance requirement.
GAAS require the auditor to project the amount of known questioned costs identified in a sample
to the items in the major program and to consider the best estimate of total questioned costs (both
known and likely) in determining an opinion on compliance. The auditor is required to
document
this consideration in the audit working papers.
The revised Circular does not require the auditor to report an exact amount or statistical
projection of likely questioned costs, but rather to include an audit finding when the auditor's
extrapolation of these likely questioned costs is greater than $10,000. In reporting likely
questioned costs, it is important that the auditor follows the requirements of §___.510(b)
and
provides appropriate information for judging the prevalence and consequences of the finding.
The
use of statistical means of determining likely questioned costs may be beneficial for auditors but
it
is not required. During the next few years, OMB expects Federal agencies to monitor auditor
compliance in this area to assist OMB in determining whether an expansion of these reporting
requirements is necessary in subsequent revisions.
Comment: Two CPA commenters requested guidance regarding the treatment of
audit findings
that cannot be quantified. The commenters cited as an example a situation where an auditor
discovers that a pass-through entity consistently failed to provide its subrecipients with Federal
award information, including applicable compliance requirements. The commenters stated that
§___.510(a)(3) could be read to indicate that such nonmonetary findings would not need to
be
reported.
Response: No change was made as a result of these comments. In the example
provided by the
commenters, this noncompliance would be required to be reported as an audit finding. The
auditor must consider a finding in relation to the type of compliance requirement (subrecipient
monitoring, in this case) or an audit objective identified in the compliance supplement. The
pertinent audit objective included in the provisional "Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement"
relating to this example is for the auditor to "determine whether the pass-through entity identifies
Federal award information and compliance requirements to the subrecipient." Because the
pass-through entity failed to provide Federal award information to its subrecipients, this
noncompliance
is material in relation to the audit objective and, therefore, must be reported as an audit finding.
In addition, the auditor must consider whether reportable conditions (and possibly material
weaknesses in internal control) exist and require reporting with respect to subrecipient
monitoring.
Audit Follow-up
Comment: Several commenters requested guidance on whether the auditor is
required to follow
up on all prior findings, particularly immaterial amounts that were previously required to be
reported. Two commenters opposed the requirement for audit follow-up on prior audit findings,
even when a finding is unrelated to a major program in the current year.
Response: In the first year audited under the revised Circular, the auditor should use
judgment in
deciding which previously reported findings require follow-up in the current year. Auditors are
not expected to follow up on prior year findings that are immaterial. The auditor should consider
the criteria for reporting audit findings, provided in §___.510(a), in determining which
prior audit
findings require follow-up.
No change was made to §___.500(e), which requires the auditor to perform follow-up
procedures
regardless of whether a prior audit finding relates to a major program in the current year. This
requirement is consistent with the requirement for management to report on the status of prior
findings in the summary schedule of prior audit findings.
Auditor Selection
Comment: Two State auditors requested a change to recognize that some auditees
(e.g., State and
local governments) do not have the constitutional or legal authority to arrange for audit services.
Response: A clarification was made to §___.305(a) to indicate that, in
procuring (rather than
arranging for) audit services, auditees shall follow the provisions described in §___.305(a).
If an
auditee is not authorized to procure audit services (e.g., State law may require that a State auditor
perform all required audits for that State), then the provisions of §___.305(a) do not apply.
Comment: One State agency and one CPA commenter did not support the restriction
on auditors
that perform Circular A-133 audits and also prepare indirect cost proposal or CAPs. These
commenters stated that the AICPA's professional standards adequately address auditor
independence.
Response: No change was made as a result of these comments. §___.305(b)
precludes the same
auditor from preparing the indirect cost proposal or CAP when indirect costs exceeded $1 million
in the prior year. This restriction was developed based on comments relating to April 1996
revision of Circular A-133, in which all Federal agencies that responded cited at least an
appearance of a lack of independence when the same auditor both performed the audit and
prepared the indirect cost proposal or CAP. The $1 million threshold was chosen to limit this
restriction to a relatively small number of entities, while still protecting the Federal interest.
The implementation date for this provision is delayed two years until audits of fiscal years
beginning after June 30, 1998, to minimize any effect this provision could have on existing
contracts for audit services. In the future, OMB and Federal agencies will monitor this area to
determine whether additional guidance or further revision to the Circular is necessary.
Federal Awarding Agency Responsibilities
Comment: A commenter noted that the Circular does not list as a responsibility of
Federal
awarding agencies the requirement included in the 1996 Amendments (31 U.S.C. 7502(f)(1)(A))
to inform recipients of the Federal requirements imposed on them by Federal laws, regulations,
and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements.
Response: A change was made to add this responsibility to the list included in
§___.400(c) of the
revised Circular.
Request for a Program to be Audited as a Major Program
Comment: Two State auditors opposed the provision included in §___.215(c)
in which a Federal
agency or pass-through entity may request for a program to be audited as a major program.
Reasons cited include: (1) that Federal agencies might use this provision excessively, and (2) that
specifying programs to be audited as major is contrary to the risk-based approach to determining
major programs.
Response: No changes were made to the Circular as a result of these comments.
This process
does not significantly change the authority Federal agencies and pass-through entities now have
to
perform additional audits as long as they pay for them. These audits may be incorporated within
the framework of the single audit and thereby eliminate duplicative audit planning and reporting.
Since the Federal agency or pass-through entity must still pay the full incremental audit cost,
OMB does not expect a significant increase in major programs from this provision.
It should be pointed out that any Type A program selected to be audited under this provision
must be low-risk. If it were not low-risk, it would have been audited as a major program under
the risk-based approach. Therefore, this provision will not reduce the number of high-risk Type
B
programs audited as major. Also, programs audited as major under this process count towards
meeting the percentage of coverage rule provided in §___.520(f).
Management Decisions
Comment: Several State auditors expressed concern about the provision permitting
Federal
agencies and pass-through entities, prior to issuing a management decision, to request additional
information or documentation from an auditee, including a request that the documentation be
audited, as a way of mitigating disallowed costs. Two CPAs requested that the term "audit" be
replaced by "auditor assurance" for clarity.
Response: A minor change was made to §___.405(a) to clarify that the
request is for auditor
assurance relating to the specified documentation. OMB also expects Federal agencies and
pass-through entities to use this provision judiciously.
Comment: One State auditor commented that it would be beneficial if auditors could
obtain
copies of management decisions and suggested that the Federal Government establish a
centralized contact from which auditors could request copies.
Response: In the next few years, OMB will consider this and other suggestions to
improve the
dissemination of management decision information.
Audit Working Papers
Comment: Several auditors requested that the Circular reflect the wording included
in the 1996
Amendments (31 U.S.C. 7503(f)) that indicates the purpose for which access to working papers
is
intended.
Response: A change was made to §___.515(b) to reflect wording similar to
the 1996
Amendments relating to this matter.
Additional OMB Guidance
Comment: Several commenters requested additional information about various
provisions in the
proposed revision and asked whether OMB will publish a "questions and answers" document as
implementation issues arise.
Response: Interested parties may wish to refer to the April 30,
1996 (61 FR 19134) and
November 5, 1996 (61 FR 57232) Federal Registers for discussion of various provisions
included
in the Circular. Useful information is provided in these Notices that is not necessarily repeated in
this Notice. In the future, if there are significant questions concerning the revised Circular
A-133,
OMB will consider issuing a "questions and answers" document relating to the revised Circular.
Franklin D. Raines,
Director
Circular No. A-133 - Revised June 24, 1997 Audits of
States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations
TO THE HEADS OF EXECUTIVE DEPARTMENTS AND ESTABLISHMENTS
SUBJECT: Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations
1. Purpose. This Circular is issued pursuant to the Single
Audit Act of 1984, P.L.
98-502, and the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996, P.L. 104-156. It
sets forth standards for
obtaining consistency and uniformity among Federal agencies for the audit
of States, local
governments, and
non-profit organizations expending Federal awards.
2. Authority. Circular A-133 is issued under the authority of
sections 503, 1111,
and 7501 et seq.
of title 31, United States Code, and Executive Orders 8248 and 11541.
3. Rescission and Supersession. This Circular rescinds
Circular A-128, "Audits of
State and
Local Governments," issued April 12, 1985, and supersedes the prior
Circular A-133, "Audits of
Institutions of Higher Education and Other Non-Profit Institutions,"
issued April 22, 1996. For
effective dates, see paragraph 10.
4. Policy. Except as provided herein, the standards set forth
in this Circular shall be
applied by all
Federal agencies. If any statute specifically prescribes policies or
specific requirements that
differ
from the standards provided herein, the provisions of the subsequent
statute shall govern.
Federal agencies shall apply the provisions of the sections of this
Circular to non-Federal
entities,
whether they are recipients expending Federal awards received directly
from Federal awarding
agencies, or are subrecipients expending Federal awards received from a
pass-through entity (a
recipient or another subrecipient).
This Circular does not apply to non-U.S. based entities expending
Federal awards received
either
directly as a recipient or indirectly as a subrecipient.
5. Definitions. The definitions of key terms used in this
Circular are contained in
§___.105 in the
Attachment to this Circular.
6. Required Action. The specific requirements and
responsibilities of Federal
agencies and non-Federal entities are set forth in the Attachment to this
Circular. Federal
agencies making awards
to non-Federal entities, either directly or indirectly, shall adopt the
language in the Circular in
codified regulations as provided in Section 10 (below), unless different
provisions are required
by
Federal statute or are approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB).
7. OMB Responsibilities. OMB will review Federal agency
regulations and
implementation of this
Circular, and will provide interpretations of policy requirements and
assistance to ensure
uniform,
effective and efficient implementation.
8. Information Contact. Further information concerning
Circular A-133 may be
obtained by
contacting the Financial Standards and Reporting Branch, Office of
Federal Financial
Management, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, DC 20503,
telephone (202)
395-3993.
9. Review Date. This Circular will have a policy review three
years from the date of
issuance.
10. Effective Dates. The standards set forth in §___.400
of the Attachment to
this Circular,
which apply directly to Federal agencies, shall be effective July 1,
1996, and shall apply to audits
of fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1996, except as otherwise
specified in §___.400(a).
The standards set forth in this Circular that Federal agencies shall
apply to non-Federal
entities
shall be adopted by Federal agencies in codified regulations not later
than 60 days after
publication of this final revision in the Federal Register, so
that they will apply to audits
of fiscal
years beginning after June 30, 1996, with the exception that
§___.305(b) of the
Attachment
applies to audits of fiscal years beginning after June 30, 1998. The
requirements of Circular
A-128, although the Circular is rescinded, and the 1990 version of
Circular A-133 remain in
effect
for audits of fiscal years beginning on or before June 30, 1996.
Franklin D. Raines
Director
Attachment
PART__ --AUDITS OF STATES, LOCAL GOVERNMENTS, AND NON-PROFIT
ORGANIZATIONS
__.200 Audit requirements.
__.205 Basis for determining Federal awards expended.
__.210 Subrecipient and vendor determinations.
__.215 Relation to other audit requirements.
__.220 Frequency of audits.
__.225 Sanctions.
__.230 Audit costs.
__.235 Program-specific audits.
__.500 Scope of audit.
__.505 Audit reporting.
__.510 Audit findings.
__.515 Audit working papers.
__.520 Major program determination.
__.525 Criteria for Federal program risk.
__.530 Criteria for a low-risk auditee.
Appendix A to Part __ - Data Collection Form (Form SF-SAC).
Appendix B to Part __ - Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement.
This part sets forth standards for obtaining consistency and
uniformity among Federal
agencies for
the audit of non-Federal entities expending Federal awards.
§___.105 Definitions.
Auditee means any non-Federal entity that expends Federal
awards which must be
audited under
this part. Auditor means an auditor, that is a public accountant
or a Federal, State or local
government
audit organization, which meets the general standards specified in
generally accepted government
auditing standards (GAGAS). The term auditor does not include
internal auditors of
non-profit
organizations.
Audit finding means deficiencies which the auditor is required by
§___.510(a) to report in the
schedule of findings and questioned costs.
CFDA number means the number assigned to a Federal program in
the Catalog
of Federal
Domestic Assistance (CFDA).
Cluster of programs means a grouping of closely related
programs that share
common compliance
requirements. The types of clusters of programs are research and
development (R&D),
student
financial aid (SFA), and other clusters. "Other clusters" are as defined
by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) in the compliance supplement or as designated
by a State for
Federal awards the State provides to its subrecipients that meet the
definition of a cluster of
programs. When designating an "other cluster," a State shall identify
the Federal awards
included
in the cluster and advise the subrecipients of compliance requirements
applicable to the cluster,
consistent with §___.400(d)(1) and
§___.400(d)(2), respectively. A cluster of
programs shall be
considered as one program for determining major programs, as described in
§___.520, and, with
the exception of R&D as described in
§___.200(c), whether a
program-specific audit may be
elected.
Cognizant agency for audit means the Federal agency designated
to carry out the
responsibilities
described in §___.400(a).
Compliance supplement refers to the Circular A-133 Compliance
Supplement, included as
Appendix B to Circular A-133, or such documents as OMB or its designee
may issue to replace
it. This document is available from the Government Printing Office,
Superintendent of
Documents, Washington, DC 20402-9325.
Corrective action means action taken by the auditee that:
(1) Corrects identified deficiencies;
(2) Produces recommended improvements; or
(3) Demonstrates that audit findings are either invalid or do not
warrant auditee action.
Federal agency has the same meaning as the term agency
in Section 551(1)
of title 5, United
States Code.
Federal award means Federal financial assistance and Federal
cost-reimbursement
contracts that
non-Federal entities receive directly from Federal awarding agencies or
indirectly from
pass-through entities. It does not include procurement contracts, under
grants or contracts, used
to
buy goods or services from vendors. Any audits of such vendors shall be
covered by the terms
and conditions of the contract. Contracts to operate Federal Government
owned, contractor
operated facilities (GOCOs) are excluded from the requirements of this part.
Federal awarding agency means the Federal agency that provides
an award directly
to the
recipient.
Federal financial assistance means assistance that non-Federal
entities receive or
administer in the
form of grants, loans, loan guarantees, property (including donated
surplus property),
cooperative agreements, interest subsidies, insurance, food commodities,
direct appropriations,
and other assistance, but does not include amounts received as
reimbursement for services
rendered to individuals as described in §___.205(h) and
§___.205(i).
Federal program means:
(1) All Federal awards to a non-Federal entity assigned a single
number in the CFDA.
(2) When no CFDA number is assigned, all Federal awards from the same
agency made for
the
same purpose should be combined and considered one program.
(3) Notwithstanding paragraphs (1) and
(2) of this
definition, a cluster of programs. The types of
clusters of programs are:
(i) Research and development (R&D);
(ii) Student financial aid (SFA); and
(iii) "Other clusters," as described in the definition of cluster of
programs in this section.
GAGAS means generally accepted government auditing standards
issued by the
Comptroller
General of the United States, which are applicable to financial audits.
Generally accepted accounting principles has the meaning
specified in generally
accepted auditing
standards issued by the American Institute of Certified Public
Accountants (AICPA).
Indian tribe means any Indian tribe, band, nation, or other
organized group or
community,
including any Alaskan Native village or regional or village corporation
(as defined in, or
established under, the Alaskan Native Claims Settlement Act) that is
recognized by the United
States as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the
United States to Indians
because of their status as Indians.
Internal control means a process, effected by an entity's
management and other
personnel,
designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the achievement of
objectives in the
following
categories:
(1) Effectiveness and efficiency of operations;
(2) Reliability of financial reporting; and
(3) Compliance with applicable laws and regulations.
Internal control pertaining to the compliance requirements for
Federal programs
(Internal control
over Federal programs) means a process--effected by an entity's
management and other
personnel--designed to provide reasonable assurance regarding the
achievement of the following
objectives
for Federal programs:
(1) Transactions are properly recorded and accounted for to:
(i) Permit the preparation of reliable financial statements and
Federal reports;
(ii) Maintain accountability over assets; and
(iii) Demonstrate compliance with laws, regulations, and other
compliance requirements;
(2) Transactions are executed in compliance with:
(i) Laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant
agreements that could have a
direct
and material effect on a Federal program; and
(ii) Any other laws and regulations that are identified in the
compliance supplement; and
(3) Funds, property, and other assets are safeguarded against loss
from unauthorized use or
disposition.
Loan means a Federal loan or loan guarantee received or
administered by a
non-Federal entity.
Local government means any unit of local government within a
State, including a
county,
borough, municipality, city, town, township, parish, local public
authority, special district, school
district, intrastate district, council of governments, and any other
instrumentality of local
government.
Major program means a Federal program determined by the auditor
to be a major
program in
accordance with §___.520 or a program identified as
a major program
by a Federal agency or
pass-through entity in accordance with §___.215(c).
Management decision means the evaluation by the Federal
awarding agency or
pass-through
entity of the audit findings and corrective action plan and the issuance
of a written decision as to
what corrective action is necessary.
Non-Federal entity means a State, local government, or
non-profit organization.
Non-profit organization means:
(1) any corporation, trust, association, cooperative, or other
organization that:
(i) Is operated primarily for scientific, educational, service,
charitable, or similar purposes in
the
public interest;
(ii) Is not organized primarily for profit; and
(iii) Uses its net proceeds to maintain, improve, or expand its
operations; and
(2) The term non-profit organization includes non-profit
institutions of higher
education and
hospitals.
OMB means the Executive Office of the President, Office of
Management and
Budget.
Oversight agency for audit means the Federal awarding agency
that provides the
predominant
amount of direct funding to a recipient not assigned a cognizant agency
for audit. When there is
no direct funding, the Federal agency with the predominant indirect
funding shall assume the
oversight responsibilities. The duties of the oversight agency for audit
are described in
§___.400(b).
Pass-through entity means a non-Federal entity that provides a
Federal award to a
subrecipient to
carry out a Federal program.
Program-specific audit means an audit of one Federal program as
provided for in
§___.200(c) and
§___.235.
Questioned cost means a cost that is questioned by the auditor
because of an audit
finding:
(1) Which resulted from a violation or possible violation of a
provision of a law, regulation,
contract, grant, cooperative agreement, or other agreement or document
governing the use of
Federal funds, including funds used to match Federal funds;
(2) Where the costs, at the time of the audit, are not supported by
adequate documentation; or
(3) Where the costs incurred appear unreasonable and do not reflect
the actions a prudent
person
would take in the circumstances.
Recipient means a non-Federal entity that expends Federal
awards received directly
from a
Federal awarding agency to carry out a Federal program.
Research and development (R&D) means all research
activities, both basic and
applied, and all
development activities that are performed by a non-Federal entity.
Research is defined
as a
systematic study directed toward fuller scientific knowledge or
understanding of the subject
studied. The term research also includes activities involving the
training of individuals in
research
techniques where such activities utilize the same facilities as other
research and development
activities and where such activities are not included in the instruction
function.
Development is
the systematic use of knowledge and understanding gained from research
directed toward the
production of useful materials, devices, systems, or methods, including
design and development
of
prototypes and processes.
Single audit means an audit which includes both the entity's
financial statements and
the Federal
awards as described in §___.500.
State means any State of the United States, the District of
Columbia, the
Commonwealth of
Puerto Rico, the Virgin Islands, Guam, American Samoa, the Commonwealth
of the Northern
Mariana Islands, and the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands, any
instrumentality thereof, any
multi-State, regional, or interstate entity which has governmental
functions, and any Indian tribe
as defined in this section.
Student Financial Aid (SFA) includes those programs of general
student assistance,
such as those
authorized by Title IV of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended,
(20 U.S.C. 1070 et
seq.) which is administered by the U.S. Department of Education, and
similar programs
provided
by other Federal agencies. It does not include programs which provide
fellowships or similar
Federal awards to students on a competitive basis, or for specified
studies or research.
Subrecipient means a non-Federal entity that expends Federal
awards received from
a pass-through entity to carry out a Federal program, but does not
include an individual that is a
beneficiary of such a program. A subrecipient may also be a recipient of
other Federal awards
directly from a Federal awarding agency. Guidance on distinguishing
between a subrecipient and
a vendor is provided in §___.210.
Types of compliance requirements refers to the types of
compliance requirements
listed in the
compliance supplement. Examples include: activities allowed or
unallowed; allowable costs/cost
principles; cash management; eligibility; matching, level of effort,
earmarking; and, reporting.
Vendor means a dealer, distributor, merchant, or other seller
providing goods or
services that are
required for the conduct of a Federal program. These goods or services
may be for an
organization's own use or for the use of beneficiaries of the Federal
program. Additional
guidance on distinguishing between a subrecipient and a vendor is
provided in
§___.210.
(a) Audit required. Non-Federal entities that expend $300,000
or more in a year in
Federal
awards shall have a single or program-specific audit conducted for that
year in accordance with
the provisions of this part. Guidance on determining Federal awards
expended is provided in
§___.205.
(b) Single audit. Non-Federal entities that expend $300,000 or
more in a year in
Federal awards
shall have a single audit conducted in accordance with
§___.500 except
when they elect to have a
program-specific audit conducted in accordance with paragraph
(c) of this
section.
(c) Program-specific audit election. When an auditee expends
Federal awards under
only one
Federal program (excluding R&D) and the Federal program's laws,
regulations, or grant
agreements do not require a financial statement audit of the auditee, the
auditee may elect to have
a program-specific audit conducted in accordance with
§___.235. A
program-specific audit may
not be elected for R&D unless all of the Federal awards expended were
received from the
same
Federal agency, or the same Federal agency and the same pass-through
entity, and that Federal
agency, or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient, approves in
advance a
program-specific audit.
(d) Exemption when Federal awards expended are less than
$300,000. Non-Federal
entities that
expend less than $300,000 a year in Federal awards are exempt from
Federal audit requirements
for that year, except as noted in §___.215(a), but
records must be
available for review or audit by
appropriate officials of the Federal agency, pass-through entity, and
General Accounting Office
(GAO).
(e) Federally Funded Research and Development Centers (FFRDC).
Management
of an auditee
that owns or operates a FFRDC may elect to treat the FFRDC as a separate
entity for purposes of
this part.
§___.205 Basis for determining Federal awards
expended.
(a) Determining Federal awards expended. The determination of
when an award is
expended
should be based on when the activity related to the award occurs.
Generally, the activity pertains
to events that require the non-Federal entity to comply with laws,
regulations, and the provisions
of contracts or grant agreements, such as: expenditure/expense
transactions associated with
grants, cost-reimbursement contracts, cooperative agreements, and direct
appropriations; the
disbursement of funds passed through to subrecipients; the use of loan
proceeds under loan and
loan guarantee programs; the receipt of property; the receipt of surplus
property; the receipt or
use of program income; the distribution or consumption of food
commodities; the disbursement
of
amounts entitling the non-Federal entity to an interest subsidy; and, the
period when insurance is
in force.
(b) Loan and loan guarantees (loans). Since the Federal
Government is at risk for
loans until the
debt is repaid, the following guidelines shall be used to calculate the
value of Federal awards
expended under loan programs, except as noted in paragraphs
(c) and
(d) of this section:
(1) Value of new loans made or received during the fiscal year; plus
(2) Balance of loans from previous years for which the Federal
Government imposes
continuing
compliance requirements; plus
(3) Any interest subsidy, cash, or administrative cost allowance received.
(c) Loan and loan guarantees (loans) at institutions of higher
education. When loans
are made to
students of an institution of higher education but the institution does
not make the loans, then
only
the value of loans made during the year shall be considered Federal
awards expended in that year.
The balance of loans for previous years is not included as Federal awards
expended because the
lender accounts for the prior balances.
(d) Prior loan and loan guarantees (loans). Loans, the
proceeds of which were
received and
expended in prior-years, are not considered Federal awards expended under
this part when the
laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements
pertaining to such loans
impose no continuing compliance requirements other than to repay the loans.
(e) Endowment funds. The cumulative balance of Federal awards
for endowment
funds which are
federally restricted are considered awards expended in each year in which
the funds are still
restricted.
(f) Free rent. Free rent received by itself is not considered
a Federal award
expended under this
part. However, free rent received as part of an award to carry out a
Federal program shall be
included in determining Federal awards expended and subject to audit
under this part.
(g) Valuing non-cash assistance. Federal non-cash assistance,
such as free rent, food
stamps, food
commodities, donated property, or donated surplus property, shall be
valued at fair market value
at the time of receipt or the assessed value provided by the Federal agency.
(h) Medicare. Medicare payments to a non-Federal entity for
providing patient care
services to
Medicare eligible individuals are not considered Federal awards expended
under this part.
(i) Medicaid. Medicaid payments to a subrecipient for
providing patient care
services to Medicaid
eligible individuals are not considered Federal awards expended under
this part unless a State
requires the funds to be treated as Federal awards expended because
reimbursement is on a
cost-reimbursement basis.
(j) Certain loans provided by the National Credit Union
Administration. For
purposes of this part,
loans made from the National Credit Union Share Insurance Fund and the
Central Liquidity
Facility that are funded by contributions from insured institutions are
not considered Federal
awards expended.
§___.210 Subrecipient and vendor determinations.
(a) General. An auditee may be a recipient, a subrecipient,
and a vendor. Federal
awards
expended as a recipient or a subrecipient would be subject to audit under
this part. The payments
received for goods or services provided as a vendor would not be
considered Federal awards.
The guidance in paragraphs (b) and (c)
of this section
should be considered in determining
whether payments constitute a Federal award or a payment for goods and
services.
(b) Federal award. Characteristics indicative of a Federal
award received by a
subrecipient are
when the organization:
(1) Determines who is eligible to receive what Federal financial
assistance;
(2) Has its performance measured against whether the objectives of the
Federal program are
met;
(3) Has responsibility for programmatic decision making;
(4) Has responsibility for adherence to applicable Federal program
compliance requirements;
and
(5) Uses the Federal funds to carry out a program of the organization
as compared to
providing
goods or services for a program of the pass-through entity.
(c) Payment for goods and services. Characteristics indicative
of a payment for
goods and
services received by a vendor are when the organization:
(1) Provides the goods and services within normal business operations;
(2) Provides similar goods or services to many different purchasers;
(3) Operates in a competitive environment;
(4) Provides goods or services that are ancillary to the operation of
the Federal program; and
(5) Is not subject to compliance requirements of the Federal program.
(d) Use of judgment in making determination. There may be
unusual circumstances
or exceptions
to the listed characteristics. In making the determination of whether a
subrecipient or vendor
relationship exists, the substance of the relationship is more important
than the form of the
agreement. It is not expected that all of the characteristics will be
present and judgment should
be
used in determining whether an entity is a subrecipient or vendor.
(e) For-profit subrecipient. Since this part does not apply to
for-profit subrecipients,
the pass-through entity is responsible for establishing requirements, as
necessary, to ensure
compliance by
for-profit subrecipients. The contract with the for-profit subrecipient
should describe applicable
compliance requirements and the for-profit subrecipient's compliance
responsibility. Methods to
ensure compliance for Federal awards made to for-profit subrecipients may
include pre-award
audits, monitoring during the contract, and post-award audits.
(f) Compliance responsibility for vendors. In most cases, the
auditee's compliance
responsibility
for vendors is only to ensure that the procurement, receipt, and payment
for goods and services
comply with laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant
agreements. Program
compliance requirements normally do not pass through to vendors.
However, the auditee is
responsible for ensuring compliance for vendor transactions which are
structured such that the
vendor is responsible for program compliance or the vendor's records must
be reviewed to
determine program compliance. Also, when these vendor transactions
relate to a major program,
the scope of the audit shall include determining whether these
transactions are in compliance
with
laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements.
§___.215 Relation to other audit requirements.
(a) Audit under this part in lieu of other audits. An audit
made in accordance with
this part shall
be in lieu of any financial audit required under individual Federal
awards. To the extent this
audit
meets a Federal agency's needs, it shall rely upon and use such audits.
The provisions of this part
neither limit the authority of Federal agencies, including their
Inspectors General, or GAO to
conduct or arrange for additional audits (e.g., financial audits,
performance audits, evaluations,
inspections, or reviews) nor authorize any auditee to constrain Federal
agencies from carrying out
additional audits. Any additional audits shall be planned and performed
in such a way as to build
upon work performed by other auditors.
(b) Federal agency to pay for additional audits. A Federal
agency that conducts or
contracts for
additional audits shall, consistent with other applicable laws and
regulations, arrange for funding
the full cost of such additional audits.
(c) Request for a program to be audited as a major program. A
Federal agency may
request an
auditee to have a particular Federal program audited as a major program
in lieu of the Federal
agency conducting or arranging for the additional audits. To allow for
planning, such requests
should be made at least 180 days prior to the end of the fiscal year to
be audited. The auditee,
after consultation with its auditor, should promptly respond to such
request by informing the
Federal agency whether the program would otherwise be audited as a major
program using the
risk-based audit approach described in §___.520
and, if not, the
estimated incremental cost. The
Federal agency shall then promptly confirm to the auditee whether it
wants the program audited
as a major program. If the program is to be audited as a major program
based upon this Federal
agency request, and the Federal agency agrees to pay the full incremental
costs, then the auditee
shall have the program audited as a major program. A pass-through entity
may use the
provisions
of this paragraph for a subrecipient.
§___.220 Frequency of audits.
Except for the provisions for biennial audits provided in paragraphs
(a)
and (b) of this section,
audits required by this part shall be performed annually. Any biennial
audit shall cover both
years
within the biennial period.
(a) A State or local government that is required by constitution or
statute, in effect on January
1,
1987, to undergo its audits less frequently than annually, is permitted
to undergo its audits
pursuant to this part biennially. This requirement must still be in
effect for the biennial period
under audit.
(b) Any non-profit organization that had biennial audits for all
biennial periods ending
between
July 1, 1992, and January 1, 1995, is permitted to undergo its audits
pursuant to this part
biennially.
§___.225 Sanctions.
No audit costs may be charged to Federal awards when audits required
by this part have not
been
made or have been made but not in accordance with this part. In cases of
continued inability or
unwillingness to have an audit conducted in accordance with this part,
Federal agencies and
pass-through entities shall take appropriate action using sanctions such as:
(a) Withholding a percentage of Federal awards until the audit is
completed satisfactorily;
(b) Withholding or disallowing overhead costs;
(c) Suspending Federal awards until the audit is conducted; or
(d) Terminating the Federal award.
§___.230 Audit costs.
(a) Allowable costs. Unless prohibited by law, the cost of
audits made in
accordance with the
provisions of this part are allowable charges to Federal awards. The
charges may be considered a
direct cost or an allocated indirect cost, as determined in accordance
with the provisions of
applicable OMB cost principles circulars, the Federal Acquisition
Regulation (FAR) (48 CFR
parts 30 and 31), or other applicable cost principles or regulations.
(b) Unallowable costs. A non-Federal entity shall not charge
the following to a
Federal award:
(1) The cost of any audit under the Single Audit Act Amendments of
1996 (31 U.S.C. 7501
et
seq.) not conducted in accordance with this part.
(2) The cost of auditing a non-Federal entity which has Federal awards
expended of less than
$300,000 per year and is thereby exempted under
§___.200(d) from
having an audit conducted
under this part. However, this does not prohibit a pass-through entity
from charging Federal
awards for the cost of limited scope audits to monitor its subrecipients
in accordance with
§___.400(d)(3), provided the subrecipient does not
have a single audit.
For purposes of this part,
limited scope audits only include agreed-upon procedures engagements
conducted in accordance
with either the AICPA's generally accepted auditing standards or
attestation standards, that are
paid for and arranged by a pass-through entity and address only one or
more of the following
types of compliance requirements: activities allowed or unallowed;
allowable costs/cost
principles; eligibility; matching, level of effort, earmarking; and,
reporting.
§___.235 Program-specific audits.
(a) Program-specific audit guide available. In many cases, a
program-specific audit
guide will be
available to provide specific guidance to the auditor with respect to
internal control, compliance
requirements, suggested audit procedures, and audit reporting
requirements. The auditor should
contact the Office of Inspector General of the Federal agency to
determine whether such a guide
is available. When a current program-specific audit guide is available,
the auditor shall follow
GAGAS and the guide when performing a program-specific audit.
(b) Program-specific audit guide not available. (1) When a
program-specific audit
guide is not
available, the auditee and auditor shall have basically the same
responsibilities for the Federal
program as they would have for an audit of a major program in a single audit.
(2) The auditee shall prepare the financial statement(s) for the
Federal program that includes,
at a
minimum, a schedule of expenditures of Federal awards for the program and
notes that describe
the significant accounting policies used in preparing the schedule, a
summary schedule of prior
audit findings consistent with the requirements of
§___.315(b), and a
corrective action plan
consistent with the requirements of §___.315(c).
(3) The auditor shall:
(i) Perform an audit of the financial statement(s) for the Federal
program in accordance with
GAGAS;
(ii) Obtain an understanding of internal control and perform tests of
internal control over the
Federal program consistent with the requirements of
§___.500(c) for a
major program;
(iii) Perform procedures to determine whether the auditee has complied
with laws,
regulations,
and the provisions of contracts or grant agreements that could have a
direct and material effect on
the Federal program consistent with the requirements of
§___.500(d) for
a major program; and
(iv) Follow up on prior audit findings, perform procedures to assess
the reasonableness of the
summary schedule of prior audit findings prepared by the auditee, and
report, as a current year
audit finding, when the auditor concludes that the summary schedule of
prior audit findings
materially misrepresents the status of any prior audit finding in
accordance with the requirements
of §___.500(e).
(4) The auditor's report(s) may be in the form of either combined or
separate reports and may
be
organized differently from the manner presented in this section. The
auditor's report(s) shall state
that the audit was conducted in accordance with this part and include the
following:
(i) An opinion (or disclaimer of opinion) as to whether the financial
statement(s) of the
Federal
program is presented fairly in all material respects in conformity with
the stated accounting
policies;
(ii) A report on internal control related to the Federal program,
which shall describe the
scope of
testing of internal control and the results of the tests;
(iii) A report on compliance which includes an opinion (or disclaimer
of opinion) as to
whether
the auditee complied with laws, regulations, and the provisions of
contracts or grant agreements
which could have a direct and material effect on the Federal program; and
(iv) A schedule of findings and questioned costs for the Federal
program that includes a
summary
of the auditor's results relative to the Federal program in a format
consistent with
§___.505(d)(1)
and findings and questioned costs consistent with the requirements of
§___.505(d)(3).
(c) Report submission for program-specific audits.
(1) The audit shall be completed and the reporting required by paragraph
(c)(2) or (c)(3) of this
section submitted within the earlier of 30 days after receipt of the
auditor's report(s), or nine
months after the end of the audit period, unless a longer period is
agreed to in advance by the
Federal agency that provided the funding or a different period is
specified in a program-specific
audit guide. (However, for fiscal years beginning on or before June 30,
1998, the audit shall be
completed and the required reporting shall be submitted within the
earlier of 30 days after receipt
of the auditor's report(s), or 13 months after the end of the audit
period, unless a different period
is specified in a program-specific audit guide.) Unless restricted by
law or regulation, the auditee
shall make report copies available for public inspection.
(2) When a program-specific audit guide is available, the auditee
shall submit to the Federal
clearinghouse designated by OMB the data collection form prepared in
accordance with
§___.320(b), as applicable to a program-specific
audit, and the reporting
required by the
program-specific audit guide to be retained as an archival copy. Also,
the auditee shall submit to
the Federal awarding agency or pass-through entity the reporting required
by the
program-specific
audit guide.
(3) When a program-specific audit guide is not available, the
reporting package for a
program-specific audit shall consist of the financial statement(s) of the
Federal program, a
summary
schedule of prior audit findings, and a corrective action plan as
described in paragraph
(b)(2) of
this section, and the auditor's report(s) described in paragraph
(b)(4) of this
section. The data
collection form prepared in accordance with
§___.320(b), as applicable
to a program-specific
audit, and one copy of this reporting package shall be submitted to the
Federal clearinghouse
designated by OMB to be retained as an archival copy. Also, when the
schedule of findings and
questioned costs disclosed audit findings or the summary schedule of
prior audit findings
reported
the status of any audit findings, the auditee shall submit one copy of
the reporting package to the
Federal clearinghouse on behalf of the Federal awarding agency, or
directly to the pass-through
entity in the case of a subrecipient. Instead of submitting the
reporting package to the
pass-through entity, when a subrecipient is not required to submit a
reporting package to the
pass-through entity, the subrecipient shall provide written notification
to the pass-through entity,
consistent with the requirements of
§___.320(e)(2). A subrecipient may
submit a copy of the
reporting package to the pass-through entity to comply with this
notification requirement.
(d) Other sections of this part may apply. Program-specific
audits are subject to
§___.100
through §___.215(b), §___.220
through
§___.230, §___.300 through
§___.305, §___.315,
§___.320(f) through §___.320(j),
§___.400 through §___.405,
§___.510 through §___.515, and
other referenced provisions of this part unless contrary to the
provisions of this section, a
program-specific audit guide, or program laws and regulations.
(a) Identify, in its accounts, all Federal awards received and
expended and the Federal
programs
under which they were received. Federal program and award identification
shall include, as
applicable, the CFDA title and number, award number and year, name of the
Federal agency, and
name of the pass-through entity.
(b) Maintain internal control over Federal programs that provides
reasonable assurance that
the
auditee is managing Federal awards in compliance with laws, regulations,
and the provisions of
contracts or grant agreements that could have a material effect on each
of its Federal programs.
(c) Comply with laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or
grant agreements
related to
each of its Federal programs.
(d) Prepare appropriate financial statements, including the schedule
of expenditures of
Federal
awards in accordance with §___.310.
(e) Ensure that the audits required by this part are properly
performed and submitted when
due.
When extensions to the report submission due date required by
§___.320(a)
are granted by the
cognizant or oversight agency for audit, promptly notify the Federal
clearinghouse designated by
OMB and each pass-through entity providing Federal awards of the extension.
(f) Follow up and take corrective action on audit findings, including
preparation of a
summary
schedule of prior audit findings and a corrective action plan in
accordance with
§___.315(b) and
§___.315(c), respectively.
§___.305 Auditor selection.
(a) Auditor procurement. In procuring audit services, auditees
shall follow the
procurement
standards prescribed by the Grants Management Common Rule (hereinafter
referred to as the
"A-102 Common Rule") published March 11, 1988 and amended April 19, 1995
[insert
appropriate
CFR citation], Circular A-110, "Uniform Administrative Requirements for
Grants and
Agreements with Institutions of Higher Education, Hospitals and Other
Non-Profit
Organizations," or the FAR (48 CFR part 42), as applicable (OMB Circulars
are available from
the Office of Administration, Publications Office, room 2200, New
Executive Office Building,
Washington, DC 20503). Whenever possible, auditees shall make positive
efforts to utilize small
businesses, minority-owned firms, and women's business enterprises, in
procuring audit services
as
stated in the A-102 Common Rule, OMB Circular A-110, or the FAR (48 CFR
part 42), as
applicable. In requesting proposals for audit services, the objectives
and scope of the audit
should
be made clear. Factors to be considered in evaluating each proposal for
audit services include the
responsiveness to the request for proposal, relevant experience,
availability of staff with
professional qualifications and technical abilities, the results of
external quality control reviews,
and price.
(b) Restriction on auditor preparing indirect cost proposals.
An auditor who
prepares the indirect
cost proposal or cost allocation plan may not also be selected to perform
the audit required by
this
part when the indirect costs recovered by the auditee during the prior
year exceeded $1 million.
This restriction applies to the base year used in the preparation of the
indirect cost proposal or
cost allocation plan and any subsequent years in which the resulting
indirect cost agreement or
cost allocation plan is used to recover costs. To minimize any
disruption in existing contracts for
audit services, this paragraph applies to audits of fiscal years
beginning after June 30, 1998.
(c) Use of Federal auditors. Federal auditors may perform all
or part of the work
required under
this part if they comply fully with the requirements of this part.
§___.310 Financial statements.
(a) Financial statements. The auditee shall prepare financial
statements that reflect
its financial
position, results of operations or changes in net assets, and, where
appropriate, cash flows for the
fiscal year audited. The financial statements shall be for the same
organizational unit and fiscal
year that is chosen to meet the requirements of this part. However,
organization-wide financial
statements may also include departments, agencies, and other
organizational units that have
separate audits in accordance with §___.500(a) and
prepare separate
financial statements.
(b) Schedule of expenditures of Federal awards. The auditee
shall also prepare a
schedule of
expenditures of Federal awards for the period covered by the auditee's
financial statements.
While
not required, the auditee may choose to provide information requested by
Federal awarding
agencies and pass-through entities to make the schedule easier to use.
For example, when a
Federal program has multiple award years, the auditee may list the amount
of Federal awards
expended for each award year separately. At a minimum, the schedule shall:
(1) List individual Federal programs by Federal agency. For Federal
programs included in a
cluster of programs, list individual Federal programs within a cluster of
programs. For
R&D,
total Federal awards expended shall be shown either by individual award
or by Federal agency
and
major subdivision within the Federal agency. For example, the National
Institutes of Health is a
major subdivision in the Department of Health and Human Services.
(2) For Federal awards received as a subrecipient, the name of the
pass-through entity and
identifying number assigned by the pass-through entity shall be included.
(3) Provide total Federal awards expended for each individual Federal
program and the
CFDA
number or other identifying number when the CFDA information is not
available.
(4) Include notes that describe the significant accounting policies
used in preparing the
schedule.
(5) To the extent practical, pass-through entities should identify in
the schedule the total
amount
provided to subrecipients from each Federal program.
(6) Include, in either the schedule or a note to the schedule, the
value of the Federal awards
expended in the form of non-cash assistance, the amount of insurance in
effect during the year,
and loans or loan guarantees outstanding at year end. While not
required, it is preferable to
present this information in the schedule.
§___.315 Audit findings follow-up.
(a) General. The auditee is responsible for follow-up and
corrective action on all
audit findings.
As part of this responsibility, the auditee shall prepare a summary
schedule of prior audit
findings.
The auditee shall also prepare a corrective action plan for current year
audit findings. The
summary schedule of prior audit findings and the corrective action plan
shall include the
reference
numbers the auditor assigns to audit findings under
§___.510(c). Since
the summary schedule
may include audit findings from multiple years, it shall include the
fiscal year in which the
finding
initially occurred.
(b) Summary schedule of prior audit findings. The summary
schedule of prior audit
findings shall
report the status of all audit findings included in the prior audit's
schedule of findings and
questioned costs relative to Federal awards. The summary schedule shall
also include audit
findings reported in the prior audit's summary schedule of prior audit
findings except audit
findings listed as corrected in accordance with paragraph
(b)(1) of this section,
or no longer valid
or not warranting further action in accordance with paragraph
(b)(4) of this
section.
(1) When audit findings were fully corrected, the summary schedule
need only list the audit
findings and state that corrective action was taken.
(2) When audit findings were not corrected or were only partially
corrected, the summary
schedule shall describe the planned corrective action as well as any
partial corrective action
taken.
(3) When corrective action taken is significantly different from
corrective action previously
reported in a corrective action plan or in the Federal agency's or
pass-through entity's
management decision, the summary schedule shall provide an explanation.
(4) When the auditee believes the audit findings are no longer valid
or do not warrant further
action, the reasons for this position shall be described in the summary
schedule. A valid reason
for considering an audit finding as not warranting further action is that
all of the following have
occurred:
(i) Two years have passed since the audit report in which the finding
occurred was submitted
to
the Federal clearinghouse;
(ii) The Federal agency or pass-through entity is not currently
following up with the auditee
on
the audit finding; and
(iii) A management decision was not issued.
(c) Corrective action plan. At the completion of the audit,
the auditee shall prepare
a corrective
action plan to address each audit finding included in the current year
auditor's reports. The
corrective action plan shall provide the name(s) of the contact person(s)
responsible for
corrective
action, the corrective action planned, and the anticipated completion
date. If the auditee does not
agree with the audit findings or believes corrective action is not
required, then the corrective
action plan shall include an explanation and specific reasons.
§___.320 Report submission.
(a) General. The audit shall be completed and the data
collection form described in
paragraph (b)
of this section and reporting package described in paragraph
(c) of this section
shall be submitted
within the earlier of 30 days after receipt of the auditor's report(s),
or nine months after the end of
the audit period, unless a longer period is agreed to in advance by the
cognizant or oversight
agency for audit. (However, for fiscal years beginning on or before June
30, 1998, the audit shall
be completed and the data collection form and reporting package shall be
submitted within the
earlier of 30 days after receipt of the auditor's report(s), or 13 months
after the end of the audit
period.) Unless restricted by law or regulation, the auditee shall make
copies available for public
inspection.
(b) Data Collection. (1) The auditee shall submit a data
collection form which
states whether the
audit was completed in accordance with this part and provides information
about the auditee, its
Federal programs, and the results of the audit. The form shall be
approved by OMB, available
from the Federal clearinghouse designated by OMB, and include data
elements similar to those
presented in this paragraph. A senior level representative of the
auditee (e.g., State controller,
director of finance, chief executive officer, or chief financial officer)
shall sign a statement to be
included as part of the form certifying that: the auditee complied with
the requirements of this
part, the form was prepared in accordance with this part (and the
instructions accompanying the
form), and the information included in the form, in its entirety, are
accurate and complete.
(2) The data collection form shall include the following data elements:
(i) The type of report the auditor issued on the financial statements
of the auditee (i.e.,
unqualified
opinion, qualified opinion, adverse opinion, or disclaimer of opinion).
(ii) Where applicable, a statement that reportable conditions in
internal control were
disclosed by
the audit of the financial statements and whether any such conditions
were material weaknesses.
(iii) A statement as to whether the audit disclosed any noncompliance
which is material to
the
financial statements of the auditee.
(iv) Where applicable, a statement that reportable conditions in
internal control over major
programs were disclosed by the audit and whether any such conditions were
material
weaknesses.
(v) The type of report the auditor issued on compliance for major
programs (i.e., unqualified
opinion, qualified opinion, adverse opinion, or disclaimer of opinion).
(vi) A list of the Federal awarding agencies which will receive a copy
of the reporting
package
pursuant to §___.320(d)(2) of OMB Circular A-133.
(vii) A yes or no statement as to whether the auditee qualified as a
low-risk auditee under
§___.530 of OMB Circular A-133.
(viii) The dollar threshold used to distinguish between Type A and
Type B programs as
defined in
§___.520(b) of OMB Circular A-133.
(ix) The Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) number
for each Federal
program, as
applicable.
(x) The name of each Federal program and identification of each major
program. Individual
programs within a cluster of programs should be listed in the same level
of detail as they are
listed
in the schedule of expenditures of Federal awards.
(xi) The amount of expenditures in the schedule of expenditures of
Federal awards associated
with each Federal program.
(xii) For each Federal program, a yes or no statement as to whether
there are audit findings in
each of the following types of compliance requirements and the total
amount of any questioned
costs:
(A) Activities allowed or unallowed.
(B) Allowable costs/cost principles.
(C) Cash management.
(D) Davis-Bacon Act.
(E) Eligibility.
(F) Equipment and real property management.
(G) Matching, level of effort, earmarking.
(H) Period of availability of Federal funds.
(I) Procurement and suspension and debarment.
(J) Program income.
(K) Real property acquisition and relocation assistance.
(L) Reporting.
(M) Subrecipient monitoring.
(N) Special tests and provisions.
(xiii) Auditee Name, Employer Identification Number(s), Name and Title
of Certifying
Official,
Telephone Number, Signature, and Date.
(xiv) Auditor Name, Name and Title of Contact Person, Auditor Address,
Auditor Telephone
Number, Signature, and Date.
(xv) Whether the auditee has either a cognizant or oversight agency
for audit.
(xvi) The name of the cognizant or oversight agency for audit
determined in accordance with
§___.400(a) and §___.400(b),
respectively.
(3) Using the information included in the reporting package described
in paragraph
(c) of this
section, the auditor shall complete the applicable sections of the form.
The auditor shall sign a
statement to be included as part of the data collection form that
indicates, at a minimum, the
source of the information included in the form, the auditor's
responsibility for the information,
that the form is not a substitute for the reporting package described in
paragraph
(c) of this
section, and that the content of the form is limited to the data elements
prescribed by OMB.
(c) Reporting package. The reporting package shall include the:
(1) Financial statements and schedule of expenditures of Federal
awards discussed in
§___.310(a)
and §___.310(b), respectively;
(2) Summary schedule of prior audit findings discussed in
§___.315(b);
(3) Auditor's report(s) discussed in §___.505; and
(4) Corrective action plan discussed in §___.315(c).
(d) Submission to clearinghouse. All auditees shall submit to
the Federal
clearinghouse
designated by OMB the data collection form described in paragraph
(b) of this
section and one
copy of the reporting package described in paragraph (c)
of this section for:
(1) The Federal clearinghouse to retain as an archival copy; and
(2) Each Federal awarding agency when the schedule of findings and
questioned costs
disclosed
audit findings relating to Federal awards that the Federal awarding
agency provided directly or
the
summary schedule of prior audit findings reported the status of any audit
findings relating to
Federal awards that the Federal awarding agency provided directly.
(e) Additional submission by subrecipients. (1) In addition
to the requirements
discussed in
paragraph (d) of this section, auditees that are also
subrecipients shall submit
to each pass-through entity one copy of the reporting package described
in paragraph
(c) of this section for
each pass-through entity when the schedule of findings and questioned
costs disclosed audit
findings relating to Federal awards that the pass-through entity provided
or the summary
schedule
of prior audit findings reported the status of any audit findings
relating to Federal awards that the
pass-through entity provided.
(2) Instead of submitting the reporting package to a pass-through
entity, when a subrecipient
is
not required to submit a reporting package to a pass-through entity
pursuant to paragraph
(e)(1)
of this section, the subrecipient shall provide written notification to
the pass-through entity that:
an audit of the subrecipient was conducted in accordance with this part
(including the period
covered by the audit and the name, amount, and CFDA number of the Federal
award(s) provided
by the pass-through entity); the schedule of findings and questioned
costs disclosed no audit
findings relating to the Federal award(s) that the pass-through entity
provided; and, the summary
schedule of prior audit findings did not report on the status of any
audit findings relating to the
Federal award(s) that the pass-through entity provided. A subrecipient
may submit a copy of the
reporting package described in paragraph (c) of this
section to a pass-through
entity to comply
with this notification requirement.
(f) Requests for report copies. In response to requests by a
Federal agency or
pass-through
entity, auditees shall submit the appropriate copies of the reporting
package described in
paragraph (c) of this section and, if requested, a copy
of any management
letters issued by the
auditor.
(g) Report retention requirements. Auditees shall keep one
copy of the data
collection form
described in paragraph (b) of this section and one copy
of the reporting
package described in
paragraph (c) of this section on file for three years
from the date of submission
to the Federal
clearinghouse designated by OMB. Pass-through entities shall keep
subrecipients' submissions
on
file for three years from date of receipt.
(h) Clearinghouse responsibilities. The Federal clearinghouse
designated by OMB
shall distribute
the reporting packages received in accordance with paragraph
(d)(2) of this
section and
§___.235(c)(3) to applicable Federal awarding
agencies, maintain a data
base of completed audits,
provide appropriate information to Federal agencies, and follow up with
known auditees which
have not submitted the required data collection forms and reporting packages.
(i) Clearinghouse address. The address of the Federal
clearinghouse currently
designated by
OMB is Federal Audit Clearinghouse, Bureau of the Census, 1201 E. 10th
Street, Jeffersonville,
IN 47132.
(j) Electronic filing. Nothing in this part shall preclude
electronic submissions to
the Federal
clearinghouse in such manner as may be approved by OMB. With OMB
approval, the Federal
clearinghouse may pilot test methods of electronic submissions.
(a) Cognizant agency for audit responsibilities. Recipients
expending more than $25
million a
year in Federal awards shall have a cognizant agency for audit. The
designated cognizant agency
for audit shall be the Federal awarding agency that provides the
predominant amount of direct
funding to a recipient unless OMB makes a specific cognizant agency for
audit assignment. To
provide for continuity of cognizance, the determination of the
predominant amount of direct
funding shall be based upon direct Federal awards expended in the
recipient's fiscal years ending
in
1995, 2000, 2005, and every fifth year thereafter. For example, audit
cognizance for periods
ending in 1997 through 2000 will be determined based on Federal awards
expended in 1995.
(However, for States and local governments that expend more than $25
million a year in Federal
awards and have previously assigned cognizant agencies for audit, the
requirements of this
paragraph are not effective until fiscal years beginning after June 30,
2000.) Notwithstanding the
manner in which audit cognizance is determined, a Federal awarding agency
with cognizance for
an auditee may reassign cognizance to another Federal awarding agency
which provides
substantial direct funding and agrees to be the cognizant agency for
audit. Within 30 days after
any reassignment, both the old and the new cognizant agency for audit
shall notify the auditee,
and, if known, the auditor of the reassignment. The cognizant agency for
audit shall:
(1) Provide technical audit advice and liaison to auditees and auditors.
(2) Consider auditee requests for extensions to the report submission
due date required by
§___.320(a). The cognizant agency for audit may
grant extensions for
good cause.
(3) Obtain or conduct quality control reviews of selected audits made
by non-Federal
auditors,
and provide the results, when appropriate, to other interested organizations.
(4) Promptly inform other affected Federal agencies and appropriate
Federal law enforcement
officials of any direct reporting by the auditee or its auditor of
irregularities or illegal acts, as
required by GAGAS or laws and regulations.
(5) Advise the auditor and, where appropriate, the auditee of any
deficiencies found in the
audits
when the deficiencies require corrective action by the auditor. When
advised of deficiencies, the
auditee shall work with the auditor to take corrective action. If
corrective action is not taken, the
cognizant agency for audit shall notify the auditor, the auditee, and
applicable Federal awarding
agencies and pass-through entities of the facts and make recommendations
for follow-up action.
Major inadequacies or repetitive substandard performance by auditors
shall be referred to
appropriate State licensing agencies and professional bodies for
disciplinary action.
(6) Coordinate, to the extent practical, audits or reviews made by or
for Federal agencies that
are
in addition to the audits made pursuant to this part, so that the
additional audits or reviews build
upon audits performed in accordance with this part.
(7) Coordinate a management decision for audit findings that affect
the Federal programs of
more
than one agency.
(8) Coordinate the audit work and reporting responsibilities among
auditors to achieve the
most
cost-effective audit.
(9) For biennial audits permitted under
§___.220, consider auditee
requests to qualify as a low-risk auditee under
§___.530(a).
(b) Oversight agency for audit responsibilities. An auditee
which does not have a
designated
cognizant agency for audit will be under the general oversight of the
Federal agency determined
in
accordance with §___.105. The oversight agency for
audit:
(1) Shall provide technical advice to auditees and auditors as requested.
(2) May assume all or some of the responsibilities normally performed
by a cognizant agency
for
audit.
(c) Federal awarding agency responsibilities. The Federal
awarding agency shall
perform the
following for the Federal awards it makes:
(1) Identify Federal awards made by informing each recipient of the
CFDA title and number,
award name and number, award year, and if the award is for R&D. When
some of this
information is not available, the Federal agency shall provide
information necessary to clearly
describe the Federal award.
(2) Advise recipients of requirements imposed on them by Federal laws,
regulations, and the
provisions of contracts or grant agreements.
(3) Ensure that audits are completed and reports are received in a
timely manner and in
accordance with the requirements of this part.
(4) Provide technical advice and counsel to auditees and auditors as
requested.
(5) Issue a management decision on audit findings within six months
after receipt of the audit
report and ensure that the recipient takes appropriate and timely
corrective action.
(6) Assign a person responsible for providing annual updates of the
compliance supplement
to
OMB.
(d) Pass-through entity responsibilities. A pass-through
entity shall perform the
following for the
Federal awards it makes:
(1) Identify Federal awards made by informing each subrecipient of
CFDA title and number,
award name and number, award year, if the award is R&D, and name of
Federal agency.
When
some of this information is not available, the pass-through entity shall
provide the best
information
available to describe the Federal award.
(2) Advise subrecipients of requirements imposed on them by Federal
laws, regulations, and
the
provisions of contracts or grant agreements as well as any supplemental
requirements imposed by
the pass-through entity.
(3) Monitor the activities of subrecipients as necessary to ensure
that Federal awards are used
for
authorized purposes in compliance with laws, regulations, and the
provisions of contracts or
grant
agreements and that performance goals are achieved.
(4) Ensure that subrecipients expending $300,000 or more in Federal
awards during the
subrecipient's fiscal year have met the audit requirements of this part
for that fiscal year.
(5) Issue a management decision on audit findings within six months
after receipt of the
subrecipient's audit report and ensure that the subrecipient takes
appropriate and timely corrective
action.
(6) Consider whether subrecipient audits necessitate adjustment of the
pass-through entity's
own
records.
(7) Require each subrecipient to permit the pass-through entity and
auditors to have access to
the
records and financial statements as necessary for the pass-through entity
to comply with this part.
§___.405 Management decision.
(a) General. The management decision shall clearly state
whether or not the audit
finding is
sustained, the reasons for the decision, and the expected auditee action
to repay disallowed costs,
make financial adjustments, or take other action. If the auditee has not
completed corrective
action, a timetable for follow-up should be given. Prior to issuing the
management decision, the
Federal agency or pass-through entity may request
additional information or documentation from the auditee, including a
request for auditor
assurance related to the documentation, as a way of mitigating disallowed
costs. The
management decision should describe any appeal process available to the
auditee.
(b) Federal agency. As provided in
§___.400(a)(7), the
cognizant agency for audit shall be
responsible for coordinating a management decision for audit findings
that affect the programs of
more than one Federal agency. As provided in
§___.400(c)(5), a
Federal awarding agency is
responsible for issuing a management decision for findings that relate to
Federal awards it makes
to recipients. Alternate arrangements may be made on a case-by-case
basis by agreement among
the Federal agencies concerned.
(c) Pass-through entity. As provided in
§___.400(d)(5), the
pass-through entity shall be
responsible for making the management decision for audit findings that
relate to Federal awards
it
makes to subrecipients.
(d) Time requirements. The entity responsible for making the
management decision
shall do so
within six months of receipt of the audit report. Corrective action
should be initiated within six
months after receipt of the audit report and proceed as rapidly as possible.
(e) Reference numbers. Management decisions shall include the
reference numbers
the auditor
assigned to each audit finding in accordance with
§___.510(c).
(a) General. The audit shall be conducted in accordance with
GAGAS. The audit
shall cover the
entire operations of the auditee; or, at the option of the auditee, such
audit shall include a series
of
audits that cover departments, agencies, and other organizational units
which expended or
otherwise administered Federal awards during such fiscal year, provided
that each such audit
shall
encompass the financial statements and schedule of expenditures of
Federal awards for each such
department, agency, and other organizational unit, which shall be
considered to be a non-Federal
entity. The financial statements and schedule of expenditures of Federal
awards shall be for the
same fiscal year.
(b) Financial statements. The auditor shall determine whether
the financial
statements of the
auditee are presented fairly in all material respects in conformity with
generally accepted
accounting principles. The auditor shall also determine whether the
schedule of expenditures of
Federal awards is presented fairly in all material respects in relation
to the auditee's financial
statements taken as a whole.
(c) Internal control. (1) In addition to the requirements of
GAGAS, the auditor
shall perform
procedures to obtain an understanding of internal control over Federal
programs sufficient to plan
the audit to support a low assessed level of control risk for major programs.
(2) Except as provided in paragraph (c)(3) of this
section, the auditor
shall:
(i) Plan the testing of internal control over major programs to
support a low assessed level of
control risk for the assertions relevant to the compliance requirements
for each major program;
and
(ii) Perform testing of internal control as planned in paragraph
(c)(2)(i) of
this section.
(3) When internal control over some or all of the compliance
requirements for a major
program
are likely to be ineffective in preventing or detecting noncompliance,
the planning and
performing
of testing described in paragraph (c)(2) of this section
are not required for
those compliance
requirements. However, the auditor shall report a reportable condition
(including whether any
such condition is a material weakness) in accordance with
§___.510,
assess the related control
risk at the maximum, and consider whether additional compliance tests are
required because of
ineffective internal control.
(d) Compliance. (1) In addition to the requirements of GAGAS,
the auditor shall
determine
whether the auditee has complied with laws, regulations, and the
provisions of contracts or grant
agreements that may have a direct and material effect on each of its
major programs.
(2) The principal compliance requirements applicable to most Federal
programs and the
compliance requirements of the largest Federal programs are included in
the compliance
supplement.
(3) For the compliance requirements related to Federal programs
contained in the compliance
supplement, an audit of these compliance requirements will meet the
requirements of this part.
Where there have been changes to the compliance requirements and the
changes are not reflected
in the compliance supplement, the auditor shall determine the current
compliance requirements
and modify the audit procedures accordingly. For those Federal programs
not covered in the
compliance supplement, the auditor should use the types of compliance
requirements contained
in
the compliance supplement as guidance for identifying the types of
compliance requirements to
test, and determine the requirements governing the Federal program by
reviewing the provisions
of contracts and grant agreements and the laws and regulations referred
to in such contracts and
grant agreements.
(4) The compliance testing shall include tests of transactions and
such other auditing
procedures
necessary to provide the auditor sufficient evidence to support an
opinion on compliance.
(e) Audit follow-up. The auditor shall follow-up on prior
audit findings, perform
procedures to
assess the reasonableness of the summary schedule of prior audit findings
prepared by the auditee
in accordance with §___.315(b), and report, as a
current year audit
finding, when the auditor
concludes that the summary schedule of prior audit findings materially
misrepresents the status
of
any prior audit finding. The auditor shall perform audit follow-up
procedures regardless of
whether a prior audit finding relates to a major program in the current year.
(f) Data Collection Form. As required in
§___.320(b)(3),
the auditor shall complete and sign
specified sections of the data collection form.
§___.505 Audit reporting.
The auditor's report(s) may be in the form of either combined or
separate reports and may be
organized differently from the manner presented in this section. The
auditor's report(s) shall state
that the audit was conducted in accordance with this part and include the
following:
(a) An opinion (or disclaimer of opinion) as to whether the financial
statements are presented
fairly in all material respects in conformity with generally accepted
accounting principles and an
opinion (or disclaimer of opinion) as to whether the schedule of
expenditures of Federal awards
is
presented fairly in all material respects in relation to the financial
statements taken as a whole.
(b) A report on internal control related to the financial statements
and major programs. This
report shall describe the scope of testing of internal control and the
results of the tests, and, where
applicable, refer to the separate schedule of findings and questioned
costs described in paragraph
(d) of this section.
(c) A report on compliance with laws, regulations, and the provisions
of contracts or grant
agreements, noncompliance with which could have a material effect on the
financial statements.
This report shall also include an opinion (or disclaimer of opinion) as
to whether the auditee
complied with laws, regulations, and the provisions of contracts or grant
agreements which could
have a direct and material effect on each major program, and, where
applicable, refer to the
separate schedule of findings and questioned costs described in paragraph
(d)
of this section.
(d) A schedule of findings and questioned costs which shall include
the following three
components:
(1) A summary of the auditor's results which shall include:
(i) The type of report the auditor issued on the financial statements
of the auditee (i.e.,
unqualified
opinion, qualified opinion, adverse opinion, or disclaimer of opinion);
(ii) Where applicable, a statement that reportable conditions in
internal control were
disclosed by
the audit of the financial statements and whether any such conditions
were material weaknesses;
(iii) A statement as to whether the audit disclosed any noncompliance
which is material to
the
financial statements of the auditee;
(iv) Where applicable, a statement that reportable conditions in
internal control over major
programs were disclosed by the audit and whether any such conditions were
material
weaknesses;
(v) The type of report the auditor issued on compliance for major
programs (i.e., unqualified
opinion, qualified opinion, adverse opinion, or disclaimer of opinion);
(vi) A statement as to whether the audit disclosed any audit findings
which the auditor is
required
to report under §___.510(a);
(vii) An identification of major programs;
(viii)The dollar threshold used to distinguish between Type A and Type
B programs, as
described
in §___.520(b); and
(ix) A statement as to whether the auditee qualified as a low-risk
auditee under
§___.530.
(2) Findings relating to the financial statements which are required
to be reported in
accordance
with GAGAS.
(3) Findings and questioned costs for Federal awards which shall
include audit findings as
defined
in §___.510(a).
(i) Audit findings (e.g., internal control findings, compliance
findings, questioned costs, or
fraud)
which relate to the same issue should be presented as a single audit
finding. Where practical,
audit findings should be organized by Federal agency or pass-through entity.
(ii) Audit findings which relate to both the financial statements and
Federal awards, as
reported
under paragraphs (d)(2) and (d)(3) of
this section,
respectively, should be reported in both
sections of the schedule. However, the reporting in one section of the
schedule may be in
summary form with a reference to a detailed reporting in the other
section of the schedule.
§___.510 Audit findings.
(a) Audit findings reported. The auditor shall report the
following as audit findings
in a schedule
of findings and questioned costs:
(1) Reportable conditions in internal control over major programs.
The auditor's
determination of
whether a deficiency in internal control is a reportable condition for
the purpose of reporting an
audit finding is in relation to a type of compliance requirement for a
major program or an audit
objective identified in the compliance supplement. The auditor shall
identify reportable
conditions
which are individually or cumulatively material weaknesses.
(2) Material noncompliance with the provisions of laws, regulations,
contracts, or grant
agreements related to a major program. The auditor's determination of
whether a noncompliance
with the provisions of laws, regulations, contracts, or grant agreements
is material for the purpose
of reporting an audit finding is in relation to a type of compliance
requirement for a major
program or an audit objective identified in the compliance supplement.
(3) Known questioned costs which are greater than $10,000 for a type
of compliance
requirement
for a major program. Known questioned costs are those specifically
identified by the auditor. In
evaluating the effect of questioned costs on the opinion on compliance,
the auditor considers the
best estimate of total costs questioned (likely questioned costs), not
just the questioned costs
specifically identified (known questioned costs). The auditor shall also
report known questioned
costs when likely questioned costs are greater than $10,000 for a type of
compliance requirement
for a major program. In reporting questioned costs, the auditor shall
include information to
provide proper perspective for judging the prevalence and consequences of
the questioned costs.
(4) Known questioned costs which are greater than $10,000 for a
Federal program which is
not
audited as a major program. Except for audit follow-up, the auditor is
not required under this
part to perform audit procedures for such a Federal program; therefore,
the auditor will normally
not find questioned costs for a program which is not audited as a major
program. However, if the
auditor does become aware of questioned costs for a Federal program which
is not audited as a
major program (e.g., as part of audit follow-up or other audit
procedures) and the known
questioned costs are greater than $10,000, then the auditor shall report
this as an audit finding.
(5) The circumstances concerning why the auditor's report on
compliance for major programs
is
other than an unqualified opinion, unless such circumstances are
otherwise reported as audit
findings in the schedule of findings and questioned costs for Federal awards.
(6) Known fraud affecting a Federal award, unless such fraud is
otherwise reported as an
audit
finding in the schedule of findings and questioned costs for Federal
awards. This paragraph does
not require the auditor to make an additional reporting when the auditor
confirms that the fraud
was reported outside of the auditor's reports under the direct reporting
requirements of GAGAS.
(7) Instances where the results of audit follow-up procedures
disclosed that the summary
schedule
of prior audit findings prepared by the auditee in accordance with
§___.315(b) materially
misrepresents the status of any prior audit finding.
(b) Audit finding detail. Audit findings shall be presented in
sufficient detail for the
auditee to
prepare a corrective action plan and take corrective action and for
Federal agencies and
pass-through entities to arrive at a management decision. The following
specific information
shall be
included, as applicable, in audit findings:
(1) Federal program and specific Federal award identification
including the CFDA title and
number, Federal award number and year, name of Federal agency, and name
of the applicable
pass-through entity. When information, such as the CFDA title and number
or Federal award
number, is not available, the auditor shall provide the best information
available to describe the
Federal award.
(2) The criteria or specific requirement upon which the audit finding
is based, including
statutory,
regulatory, or other citation.
(3) The condition found, including facts that support the deficiency
identified in the audit
finding.
(4) Identification of questioned costs and how they were computed.
(5) Information to provide proper perspective for judging the
prevalence and consequences of
the
audit findings, such as whether the audit findings represent an isolated
instance or a systemic
problem. Where appropriate, instances identified shall be related to the
universe and the number
of cases examined and be quantified in terms of dollar value.
(6) The possible asserted effect to provide sufficient information to
the auditee and Federal
agency, or pass-through entity in the case of a subrecipient, to permit
them to determine the cause
and effect to facilitate prompt and proper corrective action.
(7) Recommendations to prevent future occurrences of the deficiency
identified in the audit
finding.
(8) Views of responsible officials of the auditee when there is
disagreement with the audit
findings, to the extent practical.
(c) Reference numbers. Each audit finding in the schedule of
findings and
questioned costs shall
include a reference number to allow for easy referencing of the audit
findings during follow-up.
§___.515 Audit working papers.
(a) Retention of working papers. The auditor shall retain
working papers and
reports for a
minimum of three years after the date of issuance of the auditor's
report(s) to the auditee, unless
the auditor is notified in writing by the cognizant agency for audit,
oversight agency for audit, or
pass-through entity to extend the retention period. When the auditor is
aware that the Federal
awarding agency, pass-through entity, or auditee is contesting an audit
finding, the auditor shall
contact the parties contesting the audit finding for guidance prior to
destruction of the working
papers and reports.
(b) Access to working papers. Audit working papers shall be
made available upon
request to the
cognizant or oversight agency for audit or its designee, a Federal agency
providing direct or
indirect funding, or GAO at the completion of the audit, as part of a
quality review, to resolve
audit findings, or to carry out oversight responsibilities consistent
with the purposes of this part.
Access to working papers includes the right of Federal agencies to obtain
copies of working
papers, as is reasonable and necessary.
§___.520 Major program determination.
(a) General. The auditor shall use a risk-based approach to
determine which Federal
programs
are major programs. This risk-based approach shall include consideration
of: Current and prior
audit experience, oversight by Federal agencies and pass-through
entities, and the inherent risk of
the Federal program. The process in paragraphs (b) through
(i) of this section shall be followed.
(b) Step 1. (1) The auditor shall identify the larger Federal
programs, which shall
be labeled
Type A programs. Type A programs are defined as Federal programs with
Federal awards
expended during the audit period exceeding the larger of:
(i) $300,000 or three percent (.03) of total Federal awards expended
in the case of an auditee
for
which total Federal awards expended equal or exceed $300,000 but are less
than or equal to $100
million.
(ii) $3 million or three-tenths of one percent (.003) of total Federal
awards expended in the
case
of an auditee for which total Federal awards expended exceed $100 million
but are less than or
equal to $10 billion.
(iii) $30 million or 15 hundredths of one percent (.0015) of total
Federal awards expended in
the
case of an auditee for which total Federal awards expended exceed $10
billion.
(2) Federal programs not labeled Type A under paragraph
(b)(1) of this
section shall be labeled
Type B programs.
(3) The inclusion of large loan and loan guarantees (loans) should not
result in the exclusion
of
other programs as Type A programs. When a Federal program providing
loans significantly
affects the number or size of Type A programs, the auditor shall consider
this Federal program as
a Type A program and exclude its values in determining other Type A programs.
(4) For biennial audits permitted under
§___.220, the determination
of Type A and Type B
programs shall be based upon the Federal awards expended during the
two-year period.
(c) Step 2. (1) The auditor shall identify Type A programs
which are low-risk. For
a Type A
program to be considered low-risk, it shall have been audited as a major
program in at least one
of
the two most recent audit periods (in the most recent audit period in the
case of a biennial audit),
and, in the most recent audit period, it shall have had no audit findings
under
§___.510(a).
However, the auditor may use judgment and consider that audit findings
from questioned costs
under §___.510(a)(3) and
§___.510(a)(4),
fraud under §___.510(a)(6), and audit follow-up for
the summary schedule of prior audit findings under
§___.510(a)(7) do
not preclude the Type A
program from being low-risk. The auditor shall consider: the criteria in
§___.525(c),
§___.525(d)(1),
§___.525(d)(2), and
§___.525(d)(3); the results of audit follow-up;
whether any
changes in personnel or systems affecting a Type A program have
significantly increased risk;
and
apply professional judgment in determining whether a Type A program is
low-risk.
(2) Notwithstanding paragraph (c)(1) of this section,
OMB may approve a
Federal awarding
agency's request that a Type A program at certain recipients may not be
considered low-risk. For
example, it may be necessary for a large Type A program to be audited as
major each year at
particular recipients to allow the Federal agency to comply with the
Government Management
Reform Act of 1994 (31 U.S.C. 3515). The Federal agency shall notify the
recipient and, if
known, the auditor at least 180 days prior to the end of the fiscal year
to be audited of OMB's
approval.
(d) Step 3. (1) The auditor shall identify Type B programs
which are high-risk
using professional
judgment and the criteria in §___.525. However,
should the auditor
select Option 2 under Step 4
(paragraph (e)(2)(i)(B) of this section), the auditor is
not required to identify
more high-risk Type
B programs than the number of low-risk Type A programs. Except for known
reportable
conditions in internal control or compliance problems as discussed in
§___.525(b)(1),
§___.525(b)(2), and
§___.525(c)(1), a single
criteria in §___.525 would seldom cause a Type B
program to be considered high-risk.
(2) The auditor is not expected to perform risk assessments on
relatively small Federal
programs.
Therefore, the auditor is only required to perform risk assessments on
Type B programs that
exceed the larger of:
(i) $100,000 or three-tenths of one percent (.003) of total Federal
awards expended when the
auditee has less than or equal to $100 million in total Federal awards
expended.
(ii) $300,000 or three-hundredths of one percent (.0003) of total
Federal awards expended
when
the auditee has more than $100 million in total Federal awards expended.
(e) Step 4. At a minimum, the auditor shall audit all of the
following as major
programs:
(1) All Type A programs, except the auditor may exclude any Type A
programs identified as
low-risk under Step 2 (paragraph (c)(1) of this section).
(2) (i) High-risk Type B programs as identified under either of the
following two options:
(A) Option 1. At least one half of the Type B programs
identified as high-risk
under Step 3
(paragraph (d) of this section), except this paragraph
(e)(2)(i)(A) does not require the auditor to
audit more high-risk Type B programs than the number of low-risk Type A
programs identified
as
low-risk under Step 2.
(B) Option 2. One high-risk Type B program for each Type A
program identified
as low-risk
under Step 2.
(ii) When identifying which high-risk Type B programs to audit as
major under either Option
1 or
2 in paragraph (e)(2)(i)(A) or (B), the
auditor is encouraged
to use an approach which provides
an opportunity for different high-risk Type B programs to be audited as
major over a period of
time.
(3) Such additional programs as may be necessary to comply with the
percentage of coverage
rule
discussed in paragraph (f) of this section. This paragraph
(e)(3) may require the auditor to audit
more programs as major than the number of Type A programs.
(f) Percentage of coverage rule. The auditor shall audit as
major programs Federal
programs with
Federal awards expended that, in the aggregate, encompass at least 50
percent of total Federal
awards expended. If the auditee meets the criteria in
§___.530 for a
low-risk auditee, the auditor
need only audit as major programs Federal programs with Federal awards
expended that, in the
aggregate, encompass at least 25 percent of total Federal awards expended.
(g) Documentation of risk. The auditor shall document in the
working papers the
risk analysis
process used in determining major programs.
(h) Auditor's judgment. When the major program determination
was performed and
documented
in accordance with this part, the auditor's judgment in applying the
risk-based approach to
determine major programs shall be presumed correct. Challenges by
Federal agencies and
pass-through entities shall only be for clearly improper use of the
guidance in this part.
However,
Federal agencies and pass-through entities may provide auditors guidance
about the risk of a
particular Federal program and the auditor shall consider this guidance
in determining major
programs in audits not yet completed.
(i) Deviation from use of risk criteria. For first-year
audits, the auditor may elect to
determine
major programs as all Type A programs plus any Type B programs as
necessary to meet the
percentage of coverage rule discussed in paragraph (f)
of this section. Under
this option, the
auditor would not be required to perform the procedures discussed in
paragraphs
(c), (d), and (e)
of this section.
(1) A first-year audit is the first year the entity is audited under
this part or the first year of a
change of auditors.
(2) To ensure that a frequent change of auditors would not preclude
audit of high-risk Type B
programs, this election for first-year audits may not be used by an
auditee more than once in
every
three years.
§___.525 Criteria for Federal program risk.
(a) General. The auditor's determination should be based on an
overall evaluation of
the risk of
noncompliance occurring which could be material to the Federal program.
The auditor shall use
auditor judgment and consider criteria, such as described in paragraphs
(b),
(c), and (d) of this
section, to identify risk in Federal programs. Also, as part of the risk
analysis, the auditor may
wish to discuss a particular Federal program with auditee management and
the Federal agency or
pass-through entity.
(b) Current and prior audit experience. (1) Weaknesses in
internal control over
Federal programs
would indicate higher risk. Consideration should be given to the control
environment over
Federal programs and such factors as the expectation of management's
adherence to applicable
laws and regulations and the provisions of contracts and grant agreements
and the competence
and experience of personnel who administer the Federal programs.
(i) A Federal program administered under multiple internal control
structures may have
higher
risk. When assessing risk in a large single audit, the auditor shall
consider whether weaknesses
are isolated in a single operating unit (e.g., one college campus) or
pervasive throughout the
entity.
(ii) When significant parts of a Federal program are passed through to
subrecipients, a weak
system for monitoring subrecipients would indicate higher risk.
(iii) The extent to which computer processing is used to administer
Federal programs, as well
as
the complexity of that processing, should be considered by the auditor in
assessing risk. New
and
recently modified computer systems may also indicate risk.
(2) Prior audit findings would indicate higher risk, particularly when
the situations identified
in the
audit findings could have a significant impact on a Federal program or
have not been corrected.
(3) Federal programs not recently audited as major programs may be of
higher risk than
Federal
programs recently audited as major programs without audit findings.
(c) Oversight exercised by Federal agencies and pass-through
entities. (1)
Oversight exercised by
Federal agencies or pass-through entities could indicate risk. For
example, recent monitoring or
other reviews performed by an oversight entity which disclosed no
significant problems would
indicate lower risk. However, monitoring which disclosed significant
problems would indicate
higher risk.
(2) Federal agencies, with the concurrence of OMB, may identify
Federal programs which
are
higher risk. OMB plans to provide this identification in the compliance
supplement.
(d) Inherent risk of the Federal program. (1) The nature of a
Federal program may
indicate risk.
Consideration should be given to the complexity of the program and the
extent to which the
Federal program contracts for goods and services. For example, Federal
programs that disburse
funds through third party contracts or have eligibility criteria may be
of higher risk. Federal
programs primarily involving staff payroll costs may have a high-risk for
time and effort
reporting,
but otherwise be at low-risk.
(2) The phase of a Federal program in its life cycle at the Federal
agency may indicate risk.
For
example, a new Federal program with new or interim regulations may have
higher risk than an
established program with time-tested regulations. Also, significant
changes in Federal programs,
laws, regulations, or the provisions of contracts or grant agreements may
increase risk.
(3) The phase of a Federal program in its life cycle at the auditee
may indicate risk. For
example,
during the first and last years that an auditee participates in a Federal
program, the risk may be
higher due to start-up or closeout of program activities and staff.
(4) Type B programs with larger Federal awards expended would be of
higher risk than
programs
with substantially smaller Federal awards expended.
§___.530 Criteria for a low-risk auditee.
An auditee which meets all of the following conditions for each of the
preceding two years
(or, in
the case of biennial audits, preceding two audit periods) shall qualify
as a low-risk auditee and be
eligible for reduced audit coverage in accordance with
§___.520:
(a) Single audits were performed on an annual basis in accordance with
the provisions of this
part.
A non-Federal entity that has biennial audits does not qualify as a
low-risk auditee, unless agreed
to in advance by the cognizant or oversight agency for audit.
(b) The auditor's opinions on the financial statements and the
schedule of expenditures of
Federal
awards were unqualified. However, the cognizant or oversight agency for
audit may judge that
an
opinion qualification does not affect the management of Federal awards
and provide a waiver.
(c) There were no deficiencies in internal control which were
identified as material
weaknesses
under the requirements of GAGAS. However, the cognizant or oversight
agency for audit may
judge that any identified material weaknesses do not affect the
management of Federal awards
and
provide a waiver.
(d) None of the Federal programs had audit findings from any of the
following in either of
the
preceding two years (or, in the case of biennial audits, preceding two
audit periods) in which they
were classified as Type A programs:
(1) Internal control deficiencies which were identified as material
weaknesses;
(2) Noncompliance with the provisions of laws, regulations, contracts,
or grant agreements
which
have a material effect on the Type A program; or
(3) Known or likely
questioned costs that
exceed
five percent of the total Federal awards expended for a Type A program
during the year.
Appendix A to Part __ - Data Collection Form (Form SF-SAC)
[insert SF-SAC after finalized]
Appendix B to Part __ - Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement
Note: The provisional "Circular A-133 Compliance Supplement" is
available from the
Office of
Administration, Publications Office, room 2200, New Executive Office
Building, Washington,
DC
20503 and the OMB Home Page under the "OMB Documents", in the "Grants
Management" section.