Federal Reports

Management Advisory Review of Credit Hours and Premium Pay

What We Looked AtWe performed a quality control review (QCR) on the single audit that BDO USA, LLP performed for the Interurban Transit Partnership’s (ITP) fiscal year that ended September 30, 2018. During this period, ITP expended approximately $8.1 million from the U.S. Department of Transportation’s (DOT) grant programs. BDO determined that DOT’s major program was the Federal Transit Cluster. Our QCR objectives were to determine (1) whether the audit work complied with the Single Audit Act of 1984, as amended, and the Office of Management and Budget’s Uniform Guidance, and the extent to which we could rely on the auditors’ work on DOT’s major program; and (2) whether ITP’s reporting package complied with the reporting requirements of the Uniform Guidance. What We FoundBDO’s audit work complied with the requirements of the Single Audit Act, the Uniform Guidance, and DOT’s major program. We found nothing to indicate that BDO’s opinion on DOT’s major program was inappropriate or unreliable. However, we identified a deficiency in ITP’s reporting package that required correction and resubmission.  

The Office of Inspector General examined NASA’s management of the major Space Launch System contracts – core stage, upper stage, RS-25 engines, solid rocket boosters – to assess whether the programs are meeting cost, schedule, and performance goals.

We audited the Housing Authority of the City Long Beach’s Housing Choice Voucher Program based on a referral from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s (HUD) Los Angeles Office of Public Housing due to concerns regarding its financial activity control weaknesses. The objective of the audit was to determine whether the Authority administered its Housing Choice Voucher Program in accordance with Program requirements, with an emphasis on its financial transactions, cost and payroll allocations, contracting, and procurement.The Authority did not follow Program requirements under 2 CFR (Code of Federal Regulations) 200 and 24 CFR 982 in administering its Housing Choice Voucher Program. It did not adequately support or perform overhead allocations, follow procurement requirements, or ensure that costs were eligible. As a result, HUD had no assurance that Housing Choice Voucher Program funds totaling more than $2.4 million were appropriately used for the operation of the Program. In addition $5,648 was not used for eligible Program expenses.We recommend that the Director of the Los Angeles Office of Public Housing require the Authority to (1) develop and implement a HUD-approved cost allocation plan(s), (2) support the reasonableness of more than $1.9 million in overhead allocations[1] or repay the Housing Choice Voucher Program from non-Federal funds, (3) determine how much of the general operating costs applied to the Housing Choice Voucher Program and repay potential overcharges (estimated at $50,947) to the Program from non-Federal funds, (4) support or repay $25,827 in personnel expenses and $64,150 for accounting services that applied to other programs from non-Federal funds, (5) support the reasonableness of the $340,701 Casterline and $33,415 Genesis contract amounts or repay the Program from non-Federal funds, (6) implement additional written procurement and contracting policies and procedures, and (7) repay the Housing Choice Voucher Program for $5,648 in unallowable expenses from non-Federal funds.[1] The Authority reimbursed $183,251 to the Housing Choice Voucher program, but did not adequately indicate to which of the questioned costs it was applicable. Offsets to the questioned costs may be applied once a correct allocation and reconciliation is performed.