U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE 

COMMISSION 

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL 

FINAL REPORT: 

Election Data Collection Grant Program 

Award Number: 08-EDC-800176 

State of Illinois 

MAY 27, 2008 THROUGH JUNE 30, 2010 

Report No. 

E-GR-IL-01-12 

September 2013 
Memorandum

September 12, 2013

To: Alice Miller

Acting Executive Director

From: Curtis W. Crider 

Inspector General

Subject: Final Performance Audit Report – 2008 Election Data Collection Grant 

Program Award Number: 08-EDC-800176, State of Illinois

(Assignment Number E-GR-IL-01-12)

We contracted with the independent certified public accounting firm of McBride, Lock 

& Associates to conduct the subject audit. The objectives of the audit were to identify costs 

claimed in the Grant’s Financial Status Reports that were not allocable, allowable, reasonable, 

and in conformity with United States Election Assistance Commission’s award terms and 

conditions and applicable Federal grant requirements.

In its audit, McBride, Lock & Associates concluded that the Illinois Board of Elections

(Board) generally accounted for and expended the Election Data Collection grant funds in 

accordance with applicable requirements for the period from May 27, 2008 through June 30, 

2010. However the following exceptions were identified;

• The Board lacks complete, documented policies with respect to award 

administration, accounting and financial reporting.

• The Board’s internal control processes were not adequate to prevent or detect the 

payment of invoices lacking adequate approvals and detail of hours and hourly 

rates as outlined in the agreed-upon contract provisions.

In its August 28, 2013 response to the draft report (Attachment A-1), the Board provided 

comments to the findings and corrective actions, as applicable, to address the recommendations. 

The Board did not agree with the questioned costs of $119,595 related to the finding concerning 

contract monitoring.

In the report McBride, Lock & Associates summarized the Board’s response to the 

recommendations, as well as their comments on the responses after the recommendations. Also

included in the report is the EAC response to the draft report (Appendix A-2), dated August 12, 

2013, which indicated that the EAC would work with the Board to ensure corrective action. 

U.S. ELECTION ASSISTANCE COMMISSION

OFFICE OF INSPECTOR GENERAL

1201 New York Ave. NW - Suite 300

Washington, DC 20005
We would appreciate being kept informed of the actions taken on our 

recommendations as we will track the status of their implementation. Please respond in 

writing to the finding and recommendation included in this report by November 13, 2013. 

Your response should include information on actions taken or planned, targeted 

completion dates, and titles of officials responsible for implementation. 

To fulfill our responsibilities under Government Auditing Standards, the Office of 

Inspector General:

• Reviewed McBride, Lock & Associates’ approach and planning of the audit;

• Evaluated the qualifications and independence of the auditors;

• Monitored the progress of the audit at key points;

• Reviewed the audit report, prepared by McBride, Lock & Associates to ensure 

compliance with Government Auditing Standards; and

• Coordinated issuance of the audit report.

McBride, Lock & Associates is responsible for the attached auditor’s report and 

the conclusions expressed in the report. We do not express any opinion on the 

conclusions presented in McBride, Lock & Associates audit report.

The legislation creating the Office of Inspector General requires that we report to

Congress semiannually on all audit reports issued, actions taken to implement our

recommendations, and recommendations that have not been implemented. 

If you have any questions regarding this report, please call me at (202) 566-3125.

Attachment

cc: Director of Grants and Payments

 


 


 


 


 


 

Performance Audit Report 

2008 Election Data Collection Grant Program
 

Award Number: 08-EDC-800176
 

State of Illinois
 

May 27, 2008 through June 30, 2010
 

United States
 

Election Assistance Commission
 

McBRIDE, LOCK & ASSOCIATES 

CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANTS 

KANSAS CITY 
 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 

Performance Audit Report
 

2008 Election Data Collection Grant Program
 

Award Number: 08-EDC-800176
 

State of Illinois
 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

Page 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 

BACKGROUND 2 

AUDIT OBJECTIVES 3 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 4 

AUDIT RESULTS 4 

APPENDICES: 

Appendix A-1: Response of the Illinois State Board of Elections to the Draft Report 

Appendix A-2: Response of the U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

to the Draft Report 

Appendix B: Audit Methodology 

Appendix C: Schedule of Awards as of June 30, 2010 

Appendix D: Monetary Impact as of June 30, 2010 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 


 

	 

	 


 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission
 

Performance Audit Report
 

2008 Election Data Collection Grant Programs
 

Award Number: 08-EDC-800176
 

State of Illinois
 

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 

McBride, Lock & Associates was engaged by the United States Election Assistance Commission 

(EAC) Office of the Inspector General to conduct a performance audit of award 08-EDC800176, Election Data Collection Grant (Grant), to the Illinois State Board of Elections (Board) 

from inception on May 27, 2008 through the award conclusion date of June 30, 2010 to 

determine whether the Board was in compliance with EAC’s and Federal regulations concerning 

award administration and management. 

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government 

Auditing Standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. 

Based on the audit procedures performed, except for the matters discussed below, we concluded 

that the Board generally accounted for and expended the Grant funds in accordance with the 

requirements mentioned above for the period from May 27, 2008 through June 30, 2010. The 

exceptions are as follows: 

1.	 The Board lacks complete, documented policies with respect to award administration, 

accounting and financial reporting. 

2.	 The Board’s internal control processes were not adequate to prevent or detect the 

payment of invoices lacking adequate approvals and detail of hours and hourly rates as 

outlined in the agreed-upon contract provisions. 

We have included in this report as Appendix A-1 the Board of Elections’ written response to the 

draft report. Such response has not been subjected to the audit procedures and, accordingly, we 

do not provide any form of assurance on the appropriateness of the response or the effectiveness 

of the corrective actions described therein. 

1
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 
 


 


 

BACKGROUND 

In December 2007 Congress authorized the fiscal year 2008 Omnibus Appropriations Act 

(Public Law 110-161, Title V), which directed the EAC to award grants of $2 million to each of 

five eligible states to improve the collection of precinct level data relating to the November 2008 

Federal elections. The act provided for the creation of the Election Data Collection Grant 

Program, the purpose of which was to: 

•	 Develop and document a series of administrative and procedural best practices in election 

data collection that can be replicated by other States; 

•	 Improve data collection processes; 

•	 Enhance the capacity of States and their jurisdictions to collect accurate and complete 

election data; and 

•	 Document and describe particular administrative and management data collection
 

practices, as well as particular data collection policies and procedures.
 

The States were to use the Grant funds to implement programs to improve the collection of data 

relative to the November 2008 Federal general election and to improve the reporting of election 

data at the precinct level. The Grants were awarded in May 2008 and were for a period of 

13 months. 

The States were to provide their report on the data collected from the November 2008 election to 

the EAC by March 2009. In turn, the EAC was required to submit, by June 30, 2009, a report to 

Congress on the impact of the Election Data Collection Grant Program on States’ abilities to 

effectively collect Federal Election data. The EAC granted the Illinois State Board of Elections a 

no-cost extension on the grant beyond June 30, 2009, until June 30, 2010. 

The Illinois Secretary of State noted, in its Performance Report issued on June 1, 2009, that the 

Office had completed the tasks associated with three of the five project phases. The remaining 

two phases involved vendor enhancement services, validation reporting, training, systems 

integration functionality and systems documentation. These two pending phases were predicted 

to be completed by September 30, 2009, and the Office reported to the EAC that it had 

$1,567,189 in unused grant funds to finance these efforts and the unbilled costs associated with 

Phase 3. The Office requested and was granted by EAC a one year no-cost extension so they 

could complete the remaining Phases 4 and 5. In its Final Performance Report for the period 

ended June 30, 2010, the Office reported successful completion of all grant award requirements. 

Unused funds of $268,599 were returned to EAC in two payments of $268,369 in August of 

2011 and $230 in February of 2012. 

2
 
 

 

 

 

 


 

Data Collection Grant Activity 

Category 

(a) 

Proposed 

Amount Ju

(b) 

As of 

ne 1, 2009 Jun

(c) 

As of 

e 30, 2009 Se

(d) 

As of 

p. 30, 2010 

(d) - (c) = (e) 

Difference 

Personnel 

Fringes 

Contractual 

Other Expenses 

$ 402,500 

113,500 

1,456,000 

28,000 

$ -

-

430,688 

2,123 

$ -

-

430,688 

2,123 

$ -

-

1,740,078 

2,123 

$ -

-

1,309,390 

-

Totals $ 2,000,000 $ 432,811 $ 432,811 $ 1,742,201 $ 1,309,390 

The Office spent $1,309,390 subsequent to June 30, 2009. The expenditures were comprised 

primarily of contractual services. The Office reported that the delay in completing the project 

beyond the initial September 2009 date was caused by the manner in which the appropriation of 

funds was conducted by the State. The Office also reported in its 2009 Progress Report that “all 

relevant milestones and critical dates within the project schedule provided in the grant proposal 

have been met.” The report noted that some further refinement of certain tasks and import 

functions from the County tabulation systems were yet to be handled. 

AUDIT OBJECTIVES 

The objectives of our performance audit were to identify costs claimed in the Grant’s Financial 

Status Reports that are not allocable, allowable, reasonable, and in conformity with EAC award 

terms and conditions and applicable Federal grant requirements. The Board is required to follow 

the requirements of the Grant program’s legislation and program regulations, Grant award terms 

and conditions, Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular A-87 (2 CFR 225), Cost 

Principles for State, Local, and Indian Tribal Governments, and OMB Circular A-102, Grants 

and Cooperative Agreements with State and Local Governments. 

3
 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 


 

SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY 

We audited the Grant funds received and disbursed by the Board from May 27, 2008 through 

June 30, 2010 as shown in the following table: 

Award amount $ 2,000,000 

Award funds received $ 2,000,000 

Program income 10,800 

Total Available $ 2,010,800 

Program expenditures 

Funds returned to EAC 

Total Disbursed 

$ 1,742,201 

268,599 

$ 2,010,800 

Our audit methodology is set forth in Appendix B. 

AUDIT RESULTS 

We conducted this performance audit in accordance with Generally Accepted Government 

Auditing Standards. Those standards require that we plan and perform the audit to obtain 

sufficient, appropriate evidence to provide a reasonable basis for our findings and conclusions 

based on our audit objectives. We believe that the evidence obtained provides a reasonable basis 

for our findings and conclusions based on the audit objectives. 

Based on the audit procedures performed, except for the matters discussed below, we concluded 

that the Board accounted for and expended the Grant funds in accordance with the requirements 

mentioned above for the period from May 27, 2008 through June 30, 2010. The exceptions to 

applicable compliance requirements are described below. 

Finding No. 1 – Documentation of Policies and Procedures 

The Board lacks complete, documented policies with respect to award administration, accounting 

and financial reporting. 

Federal regulations, specifically 41 CFR 105-71.120 - Post-Award Requirements/Financial 

Administration, Standards for Financial Management Systems, Internal Control, require that: 

(a) A State must expand and account for grant funds in accordance with State laws and 

procedures for expending and accounting for its own funds, and 

(b) Effective control and accountability must be maintained for all grant and subgrant cash, 

real and personal property, and other assets. 

4 
 

 

 

 


 

The State of Illinois Fiscal Control and Internal Auditing Act (FCIAA), Section 3001 further 

requires that “All State agencies shall establish and maintain a system, or systems of internal 

fiscal and administrative controls, which shall provide assurance that (1) Resources are utilized 

efficiently, effectively and in compliance with applicable law.” 

A key aspect of maintaining an effective system of internal controls is the documentation of 

related policies and procedures to ensure these criteria are current, approved, communicated, 

incorporated into training materials, and updated when appropriate. 

The Board has not documented or incorporated into policy and procedure manuals certain 

important policies and procedures affecting award administration, including federal reporting, 

general ledger reconciliations and contract monitoring. The Board relies heavily on written 

documentation set forth in State manuals, statutes and other publications. Accordingly, policies 

and procedures implemented at the Board level are minimal, overly broad and incomplete. Due 

to the few personnel involved in award administration, accounting and financial reporting, 

policies and procedures have developed informally over the years. 

Documented evidence of contract monitoring was minimal, consisting of emails from a primary 

vendor. The absence of a structured methodology to document financial transactions and 

approvals may have contributed to the exception noted in our testwork with respect to inadequate 

detail provided on contractor invoices. 

Incomplete or inadequate documentation of policies and procedures may result in a lack of 

awareness and compliance with management’s directives, and could allow noncompliance with 

grant terms and conditions to occur and not be detected. 

The Board has had minimal experience with federal awards including the processes associated 

with federal reporting and the administration of significant contracts. Accordingly, there had 

been no specific need for documentation of policies and procedures in these areas. Further, as a 

small office much of the training, such as the reconciliation of the State and Board accounting 

systems, has occurred through verbal discussion rather than use of written documentation of 

policies and procedures. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the EAC require the Board to implement procedures to ensure that all 

significant accounting, financial management and grant administration policies and procedures 

are documented. The documentation should be reviewed and updated on a regular basis, and 

procedures should be implemented to ensure that such documentation is available and 

communicated to all personnel involved in the administration of Federal awards. 

State Board of Elections Response: 

The Board stated that it complies with applicable policies and procedures of the State for 

managing funds from both State and Federal sources, and that documentation exists in Board 

manuals, and State manuals, rules, statutes and guidelines. The Board acknowledged that it 

did not have program-specific policies and procedures for administration of EAC Data 

5
 
 

 

 


 

Collection Grant monies and agreed to develop Federal-specific policies and procedures for 

future programs involving the expenditure of Federal funds. 

Auditor’s Response: 

We commend the Board for its efforts to document policies and procedures which may 

facilitate or promote compliance with federal, state and internal Board requirements, and for 

its recognition of the usefulness of such guidance for new grantor-funded programs. 

Finding No. 2 – Contract Monitoring and Related Internal Control Processes 

The Board’s internal control processes were not adequate to prevent or detect the payment of 

invoices lacking adequate detail of hours and hourly rates as outlined in the agreed-upon contract 

provisions. 

Federal regulations, specifically 41 CFR 105-71.120 - Post-Award Requirements/Financial 

Administration, Standards for Financial Management Systems, Internal Control, requires that: 

(a) A State must expand and account for grant funds in accordance with State laws and 

procedures for expending and accounting for its own funds, and 

(b) Effective control and accountability must be maintained for all grant and subgrant cash, 

real and personal property, and other assets. 

The State of Illinois Fiscal Control and Internal Auditing Act (FCIAA), Section 3001 requires 

that “All State agencies shall establish and maintain a system, or systems of internal fiscal and 

administrative controls, which shall provide assurance that (1) Resources are utilized efficiently, 

effectively and in compliance with applicable law.” 

As set forth in OMB Circular A-87, Section C., to be allowable under Federal awards, costs must 

be adequately documented. Further, the FCIAA requires the Comptroller to establish guidelines 

for the evaluation of State Agencies’ systems of internal control. One component of this 

evaluation is the completion of an Internal Control Checklist, which requires State agencies to 

certify compliance with control objectives including that “appropriate payment is made only 

when satisfactory goods and services are received” and that controls are in place to ensure the 

State agency “receives the quantity and quality of goods and services ordered”. 

A key aspect of internal controls is ensuring that documented support exists to ensure that costs 

charged to Federal awards are commensurate with the value received. Our inspection of 8 

invoices representing 87 percent of award expenditures revealed that 6 of the 8 payments lacked 

at least one required component of support in the form of detail as to hours, rates and fees, 

project manager’s signature, approval of payment authorization document, verification of 

account coding, or documentation of contract monitoring. 

6
 
 

 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

Three primary contractors were retained for the administration of the Grant-funded project. 

Payments to these contractors amounted to $1,515,484, or approximately 87 percent of total 

award expenditures as referenced above. Audit procedures revealed that contractor billings were 

not sufficiently monitored to ensure compliance with contract terms and conditions. Deficiencies 

were noted in the areas of approvals, sufficiency of detail for travel, time and materials billings, 

and documented monitoring of contract progress and deliverables. Specifically, the following 

exceptions were noted: 

1.	 One contractor’s billings amounting to $118,400, or 7 percent of total award 

expenditures, were paid without detail as to hours, rates or the resulting fee calculation. 

These costs are questioned due to lack of documentation to support the amount billed. 

This same contractor’s billings were processed without the existence of an approved AIS13 document which should serve to authorize payment by the State Comptroller. 

2.	 Contractor billings were processed without documented approval for payment or proper 

account coding for two vendors, including the largest contractor representing 71% of 

total DCG program expenditures. 

3.	 There was limited evidence of monitoring of the largest contractor representing 71% of 

total DCG program expenditures. 

4.	 Travel incurred by contractors was not always supported with detail travel vouchers. 

Specifically, $1,195 of travel expenses were not supported by receipts. These costs are 

questioned due to lack of documentation to support the amount billed. 

It should be noted that compensation to the above contractors did not exceed the contractual 

amounts, and the Board’s project manager asserted that the contractors met all deliverables 

outlined in the statement of work. However, the absence of a thorough review of contractor 

invoices may allow improper or unsupported costs to be charged to Federal awards. 

The above-described deficiencies reflect a lack of sufficient emphasis on review processes to 

ensure all invoices were thoroughly evaluated for proper detail, approvals and account coding. 

Recommendation 

We recommend that the EAC address and resolve the following recommendation that the Illinois 

State Board of Elections: 

a.	 Implement procedures to ensure adherence to Federal and State-mandated internal control 

processes when administering future Federal awards, including specifically the 

documentation of monitoring processes with respect to contractor billings and 

deliverables, and the review and approval of all invoices for compliance with agreed 

upon contractual provisions and proper account codes, prior to submittal for payment. 

b.	 Resolve the questioned costs amounting to $119,595 cited above. 

7 
 

 

 

 

 

 


 

State Board of Elections’ Response: 

The Board concurred that some invoices in question were not submitted in accordance with 

contractual provisions and that documentation of certain monitoring activities was 

inadequate. However, the Board notes that the invoices identified in the finding were billed 

and evaluated by deliverable milestone, and that the satisfactory completion of these 

milestones was verified by a third party review vendor and by in-house staff prior to 

submittal for payment. The Board asserts that the milestone-based process ensures the 

achievement of contact objectives without the risk of contact overruns. Accordingly the 

Board does not consider the referenced costs to be questionable. The Board also stated that, 

while the travel voucher expenses discussed in the finding above were not supported by 

travel vouchers, these expenses were properly verified prior to payment. The Board agreed 

to review and enhance internal procedures to ensure that future vendor billings are submitted 

and evaluated in accordance with contractual provision and that documentation of such 

procedures is maintained. 

Auditor’s Response: 

The Board has concluded that the vendor fulfilled the terms of its contract with respect to 

completion of project milestones. We encourage the Board to request the vendor to also 

comply with the contractual provisions regarding accounting for time expended at agreedupon hourly rates to support the associated billings. This information will ensure that any 

cost savings which may have been achieved through reductions in actual labor hours from 

those initially planned are shared with the State and are returned to EAC or made available 

for future HAVA-related projects. The Board should also propose a satisfactory method to 

justify the $1,195 of travel expenses that were not supported by receipts. 

We provided a draft of our report to the appropriate individuals of the Illinois State Board of 

Elections. We considered any comments received prior to finalizing this report. 

The Board responded on August 28, 2013 and generally agreed with the report’s findings and 

recommendations although they assert that all award costs were appropriately incurred and 

commensurate with the value received. The EAC responded on August 12, 2013 and stated that 

they would work with the Board to resolve the issues and ensure appropriate corrective action. 

The Board’s complete response is included as Appendix A-1 and the EAC’s complete response 

as Appendix A-2. 

McBride, Lock & Associates performed the related audit procedures between January 28, 2013 

and June 7, 2013. 

(Original Signed by McBride, Lock & Associates) 

McBride, Lock & Associates 

June 7, 2013 

8 
 


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

STATE BOARD OF ELECTIONS
 

STATE OF ILLINOIS 

2329 S. MacArthur Blvd BOARD MEMBERS 

Springfield, Illinois 62704-4503 

217/782-4141 TTY: 217/782-1518 

Fax: 217/782-5959 

James R. Thompson Center 

100 W. Randolph St, Ste 14-100 

Chicago, Illinois 60601-3232 

312/814-6440 TTY: 312/814-6431 

Fax: 312/814-6485 

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 

Jesse R. Smart, Chairman 

Charles W. Scholz, Vice Chairman 

Harold D. Byers 

Betty J. Coffrin 

Ernest L. Gowen 

William M. McGuffage 

Bryan A. Schneider 

Casandra B. Watson 

Rupert T. Borgsmiller 

August 28, 2013 

Mr. Curtis Crider, Inspector General 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

1201 New York Ave. NW – Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20005 

Mr. Crider, 

Please find below the State Board of Elections’ (SBE) follow up response to the Revised 

Draft Audit Report dated August 27, 2013, for the performance audit conducted of award 08-

EDC-800176, Election Data Collection Grant: 

Finding No. 1 – Documentation of Policies and Procedures 

SBE Response – Concur: The Board maintains its original response per its 6/24/13 & 

8/5/13 findings letters, and will develop additional Federal-specific policies and procedures 

for future programs involving expenditures of Federal funds. 

Finding No. 2 - Contract Monitoring and Related Internal Control Processes 

SBE Response – Concur, with exception to the determination of ‘questionable 

cost’: Although the Board feels that sufficient oversight and monitoring activities were 

performed over contractual vendors assigned to the Data Collection Grant project, 

adequate documentation to verify those activities to auditors and other outside oversight 

entities was not properly maintained at the Agency level. In addition, the agency concurs 

that some processing approvals were not affixed in accordance with Federal and Agency 

operational rules, and that contractual billings from the project vendor referenced in the 

finding (VOTEC) were not documented and evaluated in accordance with originally 

stated contractual provisions. 

However, the SBE continues to assert in the VOTEC case that as the Agency became 

more familiar with the Federal goals and operational needs of the Data Collection Grant 

project, it became apparent that a milestone-based process was a better method to 

www.elections.il.gov 
 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ensure that the best outcome was received on contract deliverables. SBE also believes 

that this evaluation process prevented potential additional expense of Federal funds 

relative to this contract, as contract payments were based primarily on milestones 

achieved and eliminated the potential cost for hours worked in excess of the original 

contract estimate. Consequently, the Board continues to believe that the VOTEC costs 

should not be considered ‘questionable’, as full contract value was received, all 

deliverables were met that ensured the success of the Data Collection Grant project, and 

unnecessary costs in excess of that required to successfully complete project 

deliverables were prevented. The Board asks that the EAC take these facts into account 

when performing their evaluation of ‘questionable costs’ related to the Illinois program. 

In reference to the travel voucher documentation portion of the finding, although a 

documented travel voucher was not received, SBE did verify and validate the travel 

noted on the vendor invoice prior to vendor payment. Nonetheless, SBE will continue 

that future contractual billings are properly documented to verify the appropriateness of 

all vendor costs submitted for reimbursement. 

If you have any questions about our revised response, please feel free to contact either 

Mike Roate or Jeremy Kirk of the Administrative Services Division at (217) 782-1525. 

Sincerely, 

Rupert T. Borgsmiller 

Executive Director 

Cc: Mike Roate 

Jeremy Kirk 

www.elections.il.gov 
 


 

 

 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 

	 


 

Appendix B 

AUDIT METHODOLOGY 

Our audit methodology included: 

•	 Assessing audit risk and significance within the context of the audit objectives. 

•	 Obtaining an understanding of internal control that is significant to the administration of 

the Grant funds and of relevant information systems controls as applicable. 

•	 Identifying sources of evidence and the amount and type of evidence required. 

•	 Determining whether other auditors have conducted, or are conducting, audits of the 

program that could be relevant to the audit objectives. 

To implement our audit methodology, below are some of the audit procedures we performed. 

•	 Interviewed appropriate Board employees about the organization and operations of the 

Grant program. 

•	 Reviewed prior state-wide audits, biennial compliance audits and a performance audit 

related to the State’s financial management systems and the Grant program for the period 

under review. 

•	 Reviewed policies, procedures and regulations for the Board management and 

accounting systems as they relate to the administration of the Grant program. 

•	 Tested major purchases, in the form of contractual services, and the supporting 

documentation. 

•	 Tested randomly sampled payments made with Grant funds. 

•	 Evaluated compliance with the requirements for accumulating financial information 

reported to the Commission on the financial status reports and progress reports, Form 

SF-269 and SF-PPR, accounting for property, and purchasing Grant related goods and 

services. 

12
 
 

 

 

 

 


 


 


 


 

Appendix C 

SCHEDULE OF AWARDS AS OF JUNE 30, 2010 

Project Staffing Costs: 

Project Leader 

Information Technology Specialist 

Election Information Specialist 

Fringe Benefits 

Total Project Staffing Costs 

Contractual Vendor Implementation Costs: 

System Design, Development, Testing, Deployment & Stabilization 

Modification Contracts with Voter Tabulation Systems Vendors 

Total Contractual Vendor Implementation Costs 

Project Support Costs: 

Travel 

Miscellaneous 

Total Project Support Costs 

Total Costs 

Budget Actual 

$ 262,500 $ ­

75,000 ­

65,000 ­

113,500 ­

$ 516,000 $ ­

$ 1,036,000 $ 1,239,963 

420,000 500,115 

$ 1,456,000 $ 1,740,078 

$ 24,000 $ 2,105 

4,000 18 

$ 28,000 $ 2,123 

$ 2,000,000 $ 1,742,201 

13
 
 

 


 

Appendix D 

MONETARY IMPACT AS OF JUNE 30, 2010 

Additional 

Questioned Funds for 

Description Costs Program 

Inadequate Contractor Billings $ 118,400 $ ­

Unsupported Travel Charges 1,195 ­

Total $ 119,595 $ ­

14
 
 

 

 

OIG’s Mission 

The OIG audit mission is to provide timely, high-quality 

professional products and services that are useful to OIG’s clients. 

OIG seeks to provide value through its work, which is designed to 

enhance the economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in EAC 

operations so they work better and cost less in the context of 

today's declining resources. OIG also seeks to detect and prevent 

fraud, waste, abuse, and mismanagement in these programs and 

operations. Products and services include traditional financial and 

performance audits, contract and grant audits, information systems 

audits, and evaluations. 

Obtaining 

Copies of 

OIG Reports 

Copies of OIG reports can be requested by e-mail. 

(eacoig@eac.gov). 

Mail orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Office of Inspector General 

1201 New York Ave. NW - Suite 300 

Washington, DC 20005 

To order by phone: Voice: (202) 566-3100 

Fax: (202) 566-0957 

To Report Fraud, 

Waste and Abuse 

Involving the U.S. 

Election Assistance 

Commission or Help 

America Vote Act 

Funds 

By Mail: U.S. Election Assistance Commission 

Office of Inspector General 

 1201 New York Ave. NW - Suite 300 

 Washington, DC 20005 

E-mail: eacoig@eac.gov 

OIG Hotline: 866-552-0004 (toll free) 

FAX: 202-566-0957