Source: http://yellowbook-cpe.com/tag/audit-requirements-for-federal-grants?doing_wp_cron=1555700152.2561678886413574218750
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:55:54+00:00

Document:
Now you’ve done it. You’ve taken on a federal grant – either to administer one or to audit one!
Federal grants can be very tricky, with many strings attached. But luckily the federal government tends to be specific about their expectations regarding how the resources are to be used.
In general, governments strive to enhance accountability and transparency in their recordkeeping and reporting. The citizens have a right to know what happened to their tax money. And they have the right to know that the money was spent properly.
What this means for us, the professionals working with these grants, is that we have to dot every “i” and cross every “t.” Most grants undergo several layers of scrutiny, and grantees are constantly under threat of the ”de-obligation” of federal grant funds (which means the feds ask for their money back) if they don’t follow the rules.
This course examines some of the significant aspects of the federal government’s expectations regarding the use of taxpayers’ dollars – the cost principles.
We will examine the federal cost principles applicable to state and local governments and Indian tribal governments and to nonprofit organizations that receive federal grants. The cost principles apply to almost all federal grant programs, although some do have exceptions contained in their program regulations or individual grant terms and conditions. This text does not specifically address universities, hospitals, or for-profit entities, although the cost principles for those entities are very similar.
When an entity receives federal grants, or expects to in the near future, it should ensure that one or more of its employees have a strong working knowledge of the federal cost principles.
Is it allowable to buy a truck to deliver meals to the elderly?
Is it allowable to purchase food for the annual holiday party with federal funds?
Is the salary for the agency’s receptionist chargeable to the grant?
Is the cost for defending our patent chargeable to the grant?
If you are unsure about the allowability of costs, the auditor and grantor will question your competency. And when auditors or grantors start to doubt your credibility, they have a responsibility to dig a little deeper, and it is never pleasant to be on the receiving end of a dig.
On the other hand, if you are an auditor, you need to be able to detect when costs are not allowable and help the client come into compliance with grant regulations.
Before we delve into the federal regulations, we’d better master a few key acronyms and terms. The federal government is rife with them.
OMB – Office of Management and Budget– An agency in the executive branch of the federal government. The OMB works with the president to help him direct all of the federal agencies at his command such as the Department of Defense, the Department of Health and Human Services, Department of Housing and Urban Development, etc.
CFR – Code of Federal Regulations– The Code of Federal Regulations is authored by the federal agencies that administer the grants. So the Department of Defense and the Department of Health and Human Services write these regulations. The CFR is divided into 50 titlesthat represent broad areas subject to federal regulation. Each of 50 broad titles usually indicates the issuing agency. Each title is further subdivided into parts, similar to chapters that cover specific regulatory areas. The OMB issues Title 2 of the CFR.
Non-Federal entity— Astate, local government, Indian tribe, institution of higher education (IHE), or nonprofit organization that carries out a Federal award as a recipient or subrecipient. Note that the term non-Federal entity does not include for-profit organizations.
Pass-through entity—A non-Federal entity that provides a subaward to a subrecipient to carry out part of a federal program.
Equipment— Tangible personal property (including information technology systems) having a useful life of more than one year and a per-unit acquisition cost of $5,000 or more.
A further word about the OMB: The OMB helps the president design the federal budget. It also issues directives in the form of “circulars” and “bulletins” to executive branch agencies. These issuances convert law and executive directions into implementable actions and are to be used by the federal agencies in carrying out their missions. The circulars define terms and fill in the blanks with references that Congress may or may not fill in. They are usually fairly easy to read as the OMB does its best to speak in plain English, but they are often long and detailed.
The OMB, in an effort to make it easier for grantees to find the information they need to manage grants, has relocated those that are circulars applicable to federal grants to Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations. Previously, the cost principles were in several circulars, but now they reside in 2 CFR 200, Subpart E. This makes sense, as the circulars are directions for federal agencies, and grantees are used to looking for federal rules in the CFRs.
This relocation is part of a broader initiative to make Title 2 of the CFR the single location where the public can find guidance for grants and agreements. Future reform efforts may eventually seek to incorporate the Cost Principles for Hospitals, which are now included in the Department of Health and Human Services regulations, into the CFR.
The uniform cost principles covered in this course are contained in 2 CFR 200: Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles, and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards. The broader initiative provides a good foundation for streamlining and simplifying the policy framework for grants and agreements.
Individual grant terms and conditions (specific grant terms).
For governmental units and nonprofits, these rules, which differ by type of entity, are set out in 2 CFR 200, Subparts B, C and D.
Cross-cutting cost principles address the general rules for what makes a cost allowable and the rules for specific types of costs. These rules are set out in 2 CFR 200, Subpart E.
Part 200, Subpart E of 2 CFR, does not apply to hospitals, regardless of whether the entity is organized as a governmental organization or as a private nonprofit. The cost principles for hospitals, which are not the focus of this text, are covered under 45 CFR 75, Appendix IX.
If you work with a for-profit entity (such as a defense contractor), the Federal Acquisition Regulations (known as FAR) apply.
There is one exception. The federal government requires a small number of very large nonprofit organizations to follow the FAR rather than 2 CFR 200, Subpart E. There is a list of these large nonprofits in Appendix VIII to Part 200—Nonprofit Organizations Exempted From Subpart E—Cost Principles of Part 200.
Did you catch all that? CFRs, circulars, and FAR. I hope the OMB keeps working on making things simpler, don’t you?
Program rules, which differ by federal program, are customarily cited in the grant award. They may conflict with, and override, cross-cutting administrative rules and the cost principles. That is totally within the rights of the granting agency and makes it loads of fun to keep up with grants from more than one granting agency.
The federal grantor can go one step further than allowing or restricting behavior in the program rules. It can write specific terms and conditions for a grant going to a particular entity.
For instance, if a grantee has a history of violating grant rules, the federal grantor may consider the grantee ”high risk.” As a result, the grantor can spell out terms for the grantee that other recipients are not required to meet. Of course, if the grantee objects, it does not have to sign the agreement or take the money. But once the agreement is signed, the grantee is locked into the terms negotiated with the grantor.
Below is the basic structure of 2 CFR 200, Subpart E. The full text of Subpart E appears as an attachment to this course.
§200.407 Prior written approval (prior approval).
§200.408 Limitation on allowance of costs.
§200.410 Collection of unallowable costs.
§200.411 Adjustment of previously negotiated indirect (F&A) cost rates containing unallowable costs.
§200.416 Cost allocation plans and indirect cost proposals.
§200.418 Costs incurred by states and local governments.
§200.420 Considerations for selected items of cost.
§200.421 Advertising and public relations.
§200.429 Commencement and convocation costs.
§200.435 Defense and prosecution of criminal and civil proceedings, claims, appeals and patent infringements.
§200.437 Employee health and welfare costs.
§200.439 Equipment and other capital expenditures.
§200.441 Fines, penalties, damages and other settlements.
§200.442 Fund raising and investment management costs.
§200.443 Gains and losses on disposition of depreciable assets.
§200.444 General costs of government.
§200.445 Goods or services for personal use.
§200.446 Idle facilities and idle capacity.
§200.451 Losses on other awards or contracts.
§200.452 Maintenance and repair costs.
§200.453 Materials and supplies costs, including costs of computing devices.
§200.454 Memberships, subscriptions, and professional activity costs.
§200.461 Publication and printing costs.
§200.462 Rearrangement and reconversion costs.
§200.464 Relocation costs of employees.
§200.465 Rental costs of real property and equipment.
§200.466 Scholarships and student aid costs.
§200.467 Selling and marketing costs.
§200.470 Taxes (including Value Added Tax).
§200.472 Training and education costs.
While not specifically stated in 2 CFR 200, it is reasonable to conclude that the uniform guidance intends to promote effective program delivery, efficiency, and better relationships between governmental entities and the Federal government in administering (1) grants, (2) cost reimbursement contracts, and (3) other agreements with the federal government.
The cost principles are designed to assure that federal awards bear their fair share of costs except where prohibited or restricted by law or regulation. For instance, as a condition to receiving a federal award, some grants require that the grantee contribute a share, in either funds (real money) or “in–kind” contributions (goods and services provided by others) to total award expenditures. Generally, this type of requirement is intended to provide assistance while assuring the grantee’s support for the project.
In the first few chapters of this portion of the text, we discuss the General Provision, Basic Considerations (§200.402 Composition of costs through §200.417 Cost accounting standards and disclosure statement). In later chapters, we cover General Provisions for Selected Items of Costand the allowability of these items (§200.420 Considerations for selected items of cost through §200.475 Trustees).
Subpart Eof 2 CFR 200 establishes the general principles and standards for a uniform approach in determining allowable costs incurred by governmental units and nonprofit organizations, respectively, under federal awards. Although the wording may vary slightly from previous cost standards, the general principles are essentially the same.
To be allowable, a cost must both meet the cost principles and be permissible. The general cost principles require that costs must be necessary and reasonable, allocable, treated consistently, adequately documented, etc. These criteria are crucial to the overall allowability of award costs.
While specific items of cost (e.g., salary, travel costs, indirect costs) may be permissible under federal rules, they may fail to meet one of the essential general cost principles. When this occurs, the costs are unallowable. On the whole, far more costs are determined to be unallowable because they fail the general standards than because they fail the specific requirements. Therefore, the general cost principles are of the greatest importance to those administering federal awards.
Metaphorically, the cost principles could be likened to a well-defined property line in that it is necessary to know the boundary (rules) before erecting a building (incurring award costs).
The rules regarding the allowability of costs apply to the total composition of cost, which includes both direct costs and indirect costs. We discuss direct costs and indirect costs in more depth later in this course. However, at this point, let us give you a brief definition of each, which you will see again later.
Total cost. The total cost of a Federal award is the sum of the allowable direct and allocable indirect costs less any applicable credits.
Direct costs are those costs that can be identified with a “final cost objective.” A final cost objective is a specific activity or function for which the entity wants to know the total costs. Virtually all federal grants are final cost objectives, as grantees need to know their costs in order to prepare the proper claim forms. But there may be additional items for which the grantee wants to know the total costs incurred.
(a) General. Direct costs are those costs that can be identified specifically with a particular final cost objective, such as a Federal award, or other internally or externally funded activity, or that can be directly assigned to such activities relatively easily with a high degree of accuracy. Costs incurred for the same purpose in like circumstances must be treated consistently as either direct or indirect (F&A) costs.
In general, indirect costs are those costs incurred by the grantee organization for a common or joint purpose benefiting more than one project.
§200.56 Indirect (facilities & administrative (F&A)) costs.
Indirect (F&A) costsmeans those costs incurred for a common or joint purpose benefitting more than one cost objective, and not readily assignable to the cost objectives specifically benefitted, without effort disproportionate to the results achieved. To facilitate equitable distribution of indirect expenses to the cost objectives served, it may be necessary to establish a number of pools of indirect (F&A) costs. Indirect (F&A) cost pools should be distributed to benefitted cost objectives on bases that will produce an equitable result in consideration of relative benefits derived.
For example, if you provide school lunches to low-income children, you incur a variety of costs; some costs are easily traceable to the program and some are not. Being “direct” indicates that a cost was incurred specifically for this program. Indirect costs are a little more fuzzy, or difficult to trace to a program.
For the school lunch program, the costs of food and the labor involved in cooking and serving the food would generally be considered direct costs. Let’s say that the cost of food is 40 cents, the cost of labor to cook it is 20 cents, and the cost to serve is 24 cents. This totals 84 cents of direct costs.
The school district incurs a litany of other costs to make the program work. We call these fuzzier costs “overhead” costs. With the school lunch program, the administrative staff has to do the paperwork to ensure that the students are qualified to receive the lunches. The accounting department has to compile cost reimbursement paperwork to submit to the grantor. The janitor has to clean the lunchroom and kitchen. The electricity bill has to be paid. The lunchroom monitors must be compensated. The program has to be marketed or communicated to parents who are eligible for the program. We could go on and on and on!
If the school district asked the federal grantor to reimburse the district for only 84 cents per lunch per student, the district would be in the hole on this program, which isn’t very fair. In addition to spending the 84 cents for direct costs per school lunch, the district might spend another 49 cents on indirect costs. If the federal government mandates the program, they often (but not always!) pay for the whole program. Instead of paying only 84 cents, the federal grantor would reimburse the district $1.33 per lunch.
Occasionally, I receive comments from people who think that only the direct costs are real costs. These individuals believe that indirect costs are just a technique to siphon funds away from the real work of the grant. I usually respond to such comments by asking whether they like the idea of receiving paychecks every couple of weeks, whether they like to have desks on which to work, whether they like having the building heated in the winter, etc. These are all real costs even though they cannot be directly related to an individual project.
Management accountants spend much of their careers trying to figure out how to allocate costs to a particular product or service. The proper way to allocate indirect costs to a product or service often is a bone of contention with these professionals. Some are fans of an intense cost allocation technique called “Activity Based Costing,”and others prefer to use a simple method to spread the costs in the pool among services and programs.
In the example above, how do you treat the salary of the chief accountant of the school district? Is he directly involved with the school lunch program? No. But does his administrative work in some way contribute to the operations of the program. Sure. So what is fair to charge the grantor, and what is not?
Allow the grantee to build profit into their cost estimates or reimbursement requests. The grantee should not endeavor to generate profits to support other programs or activities by charging the federal grantor in excess of allowable costs.
Because the federal grantor is the ultimate steward of the public’s resources, funds cannot be sent to entities that cannot handle them properly.
Establish its own organizational structure.
A few years ago, while teaching a class on the cost principles to employees of a U.S. territory, a student raised a question about grant-related travel costs associated with their grant.
This student explained that flights to the U.S. had to be reserved four to six weeks in advance. But, because of the island’s cumbersome administrative process, the tickets might be purchased only a few days before the flight. Since the tickets were purchased so late, their cost often was more than double the reservation price.
A federal grant representative had warned the employees of the grantee that she might no longer accept the higher flight prices. The student was troubled by that possibility.
Now, if I were the grant representative, I would have questioned the excessive cost a lot earlier. While it wasn’t the student’s (or his classmates’) fault, and the problem related to the administrative unit within the territory, the grant was not made to the student(s) but to the island itself. In my opinion, the grant representative acted appropriately since the territory had not complied with the basic requirement for “efficient and effective administration.” Such unreasonable travel costs would be deemed unallowable.
The type of entity of the grantee organization determines which rules the entity must follow. All entities must follow the program-specific rules cited in the award documents and any specific award terms and conditions. In addition, recipients, except for hospitals, for-profit entities, and certain very large nonprofit entities, must follow the requirements set forth in 2 CFR 200. In this text, we cover the cost principles for only nonprofit organizations and state and local governments.
(a) The non-Federal entity is responsible for the efficient and effective administration of the Federal award through the application of sound management practices.
(b) The non-Federal entity assumes responsibility for administering Federal funds in a manner consistent with underlying agreements, program objectives, and the terms and conditions of the Federal award.
(c) The non-Federal entity, in recognition of its own unique combination of staff, facilities, and experience, has the primary responsibility for employing whatever form of sound organization and management techniques may be necessary in order to assure proper and efficient administration of the Federal award.
(d) The application of these cost principles should require no significant changes in the internal accounting policies and practices of the non-Federal entity. However, the accounting practices of the non-Federal entity must be consistent with these cost principles and support the accumulation of costs as required by the principles, and must provide for adequate documentation to support costs charged to the Federal award.
(e) In reviewing, negotiating and approving cost allocation plans or indirect cost proposals, the cognizant agency for indirect costs should generally assure that the non-Federal entity is applying these cost accounting principles on a consistent basis during their review and negotiation of indirect cost proposals. Where wide variations exist in the treatment of a given cost item by the non-Federal entity, the reasonableness and equity of such treatments should be fully considered. See §200.56 Indirect (facilities & administrative (F&A)) costs.
(f) For non-Federal entities that educate and engage students in research, the dual role of students as both trainees and employees contributing to the completion of Federal awards for research must be recognized in the application of these principles.
(g) The non-Federal entity may not earn or keep any profit resulting from Federal financial assistance, unless expressly authorized by the terms and conditions of the Federal award. See also §200.307 Program income.
§200.401. (c) Exemptions. Some nonprofit organizations, because of their size and nature of operations, can be considered to be similar to for-profit entities for the purpose of applicability of cost principles.
Activity Based Costing (ABC) incorporates many methods of allocating overall costs, such as accounting, depreciation, procurement, etc.

References: §200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200

§200
 §200
 §200

§200
 §200
 §200

§200