2 Cfr 200 Audit Requirements

If a unit in a pre­vious pro­cu­re­ment pro­cess for its cur­rent audi­tor fol­lows the (1) app­li­ca­ble pro­cu­re­ment methods con­tai­ned in 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.317–200.327 and (2) the requi­re­ments of 2 C.F.R. § 200.509, it may be able to use the same audi­tor. If a non-federal enter­pri­se has not com­pe­ti­tively ten­de­red the audit con­tract (pro­vi­ded that the cos­ts are abo­ve the micro-purcha­se thres­hold), it should not use the cur­rent audi­tor without con­duc­ting a new pro­cu­re­ment pro­cess cor­re­spon­ding to 2 C.F.R. § 200.509. Can a non-federal cor­po­ra­ti­on “reu­se” an audi­tor with whom it has alrea­dy con­trac­ted to con­duct a sin­gle audit without reor­ga­ni­zing the order? (2) Not­with­stan­ding para­graph ©(1) of this sec­tion, the OMB may appro­ve a request by a federal pro­cu­re­ment agen­cy that a Type A pro­gram can­not be con­si­de­red to pose a low risk to a par­ti­cu­lar reci­pi­ent. For examp­le, it may be necessa­ry for a lar­ge Type A pro­gram to be review­ed annu­al­ly at a par­ti­cu­lar reci­pi­ent as the pri­ma­ry pro­gram in order for the Federal Pro­cu­re­ment Office to com­ply with 31 U.S.C. 3515. The Federal Office of Public Pro­cu­re­ment must inform the bene­fi­cia­ry and, if known, the audi­tor of the OMB‘s appro­val at least 180 calen­dar days befo­re the end of the finan­cial year to be audi­ted. The Uni­form Gui­de­li­nes (2 CFR § 200) stream­li­ne and con­so­li­da­te government requi­re­ments for obtai­ning and using federal grants to redu­ce admi­nis­tra­ti­ve bur­dens and impro­ve out­co­mes. It was publis­hed on the Federal Regis­ter (79 Fed. Reg.

75871) on Decem­ber 19, 2014 and came into effect for new and con­ti­nua­tion bonu­ses awar­ded effec­ti­ve Decem­ber 26, 2014. Plea­se note that the new rules will not affect grant funds awar­ded befo­re Decem­ber 26, 2014, unless the funds made avail­ab­le under the­se grants are car­ri­ed for­ward to a new federal fis­cal year or a con­ti­nua­tion grant. (3) Any addi­tio­nal pro­gram that may be requi­red to com­ply with the per­cen­ta­ge of coverage rule descri­bed in para­graph (f) of this Divi­si­on. This may requi­re the review­er to ana­ly­ze more pro­grams than the main pro­grams than the num­ber of type A pro­grams. Manage­ment decisi­ons shall inclu­de the refe­rence num­bers assi­gned by the audi­tor to each audit result in accordance with para­graph 200.516©. (iii) Super­vi­si­on of the trai­ning of pro­gram­me manage­ment staff of the Federal Public Pro­cu­re­ment Agen­cy as part of the uni­form audit pro­cess. (d) give the sta­tu­to­ry audi­tor access to the staff, accounts, books, records, sup­por­ting docu­ments and other infor­ma­ti­on necessa­ry for the sta­tu­to­ry audi­tor to car­ry out the audit requi­red by this Part. e) None of the federal pro­grams obtai­ned audit results from any of the two pre­vious audit peri­ods during which they were clas­si­fied as Type A pro­grams: If the Uni­form Gui­de­li­nes requi­re a non-federal enti­ty to pro­cu­re indi­vi­du­al audit ser­vices, it must meet the pro­cu­re­ment stan­dards set out in Sec­tions 2 C.F.R. §§ 200.317 to 200.327 of the Uni­form Guidelines.

See 2 C.F.R. § 200.509(a). The­se sec­tions of the Uni­form Gui­de­li­nes set out five aut­ho­ri­zed pro­cu­re­ment methods for non-federal enti­ties that pro­vi­de federal finan­cial assi­s­tance: (1) micro-pro­cu­re­ment (§ 200.320(a)(1)); (2) small purcha­ses (§ 200.320(a)(2)); (3) sea­led offers (§ 200.320(b)(1)); (4) Pro­po­sals (§ 200.320(b)(2)); and (5) non-com­pe­ti­ti­ve government pro­cu­re­ment (§ 200.320©(1)-(5)). A non-federal enti­ty must app­ly the­se methods in con­junc­tion with North Caro­li­na law and any local­ly adop­ted pro­cu­re­ment poli­cy. See 2 C.F.R. § 200.318(a) (Obli­ga­ti­on of non-federal agen­ci­es to “have and enfor­ce docu­men­ted pro­cu­re­ment pro­ce­du­res in accordance with the laws and regu­la­ti­ons of sta­te, local and tri­bal are­as, and the stan­dards of [2 C.F.R. § 200.318]”). 3. Using the infor­ma­ti­on con­tai­ned in the decla­ra­ti­on file descri­bed in point © of this Sec­tion, the sta­tu­to­ry audi­tor shall com­ple­te the app­li­ca­ble data ele­ments of the data collec­tion form.

The sta­tu­to­ry audi­tor shall sign a decla­ra­ti­on to be inclu­ded in the data collec­tion form, in which at least the source of the infor­ma­ti­on con­tai­ned in the form, the respon­si­bi­li­ty of the sta­tu­to­ry audi­tor for the infor­ma­ti­on, the fact that the form does not replace the decla­ra­ti­on file descri­bed in point © of this Sec­tion and that the con­tent of the form is limi­ted to the collec­tion of the infor­ma­ti­on requi­red by OMB. (1) The exami­ner shall iden­ti­fy the most important federal pro­grams to be mar­ked with type A pro­grams. Type A pro­grams are defi­ned as federal pro­grams who­se federal grants were awar­ded during the audit peri­od and which exceed the levels descri­bed in the table to para­graph (b)(1): (i) two years have elap­sed sin­ce the audit report in which the deter­mi­na­ti­on was made was sub­mit­ted to the ACS; (g) docu­men­ta­ti­on of the risk. The audi­tor should inclu­de in the audit docu­men­ta­ti­on the risk ana­ly­sis pro­cess used to deter­mi­ne the most important pro­grams. This Part estab­lis­hes stan­dards to ensu­re con­sis­ten­cy and con­sis­ten­cy among federal orga­niz­a­ti­ons for the audit of non-federal enti­ties that pay federal com­pen­sa­ti­on. (e) Fourth sta­ge. At a mini­mum, the audi­tor shall review all of the fol­lowing pro­grams as pri­ma­ry pro­grams: (ix) A state­ment as to whe­ther the audi­ted offi­cer qua­li­fies as a low-risk audi­ted insti­tu­ti­on under sec­tion 200.520. (iii) Respon­si­ble for appoin­ting the federal agency‘s most seni­or per­for­mance audit liai­son offi­cer. First, a unit must deter­mi­ne the total cost of the sin­gle audit. Alt­hough this amount does not need to be accu­ra­te, the unit must collect enough infor­ma­ti­on for its esti­ma­te to be adequate.

The unit reli­es on this esti­ma­te to deter­mi­ne the method of sup­ply to be fol­lo­wed in Step 2. (3) Federal pro­grams that have not recent­ly been audi­ted as major pro­grams may pose a hig­her risk than federal pro­grams that have recent­ly been exami­ned as major pro­grams without audit results. (i) ser­ve as the manage­ment con­ta­ct point of the Federal Office for Public Pro­cu­re­ment for the uni­form audit pro­cess wit­hin and out­side the Federal Government. With the excep­ti­on of the acqui­si­ti­on of archi­tec­tu­ral, engi­nee­ring, sur­vey­ing, or cer­tain other alter­na­ti­ve con­struc­tion sup­ply ser­vices (see Sec­tion 3D of Chap­ter 143 of the Gene­ral Sta­tu­tes), North Caro­li­na law does not requi­re local government enti­ties to par­ti­ci­pa­te in a ten­de­ring pro­cess for the purcha­se of ser­vices (inclu­ding audit ser­vices). Non-federal enter­pri­ses may soli­cit ten­ders by adop­ting a local­ly app­li­ca­ble pro­cu­re­ment poli­cy if the­re is no gene­ral­ly app­li­ca­ble requi­re­ment under North Caro­li­na law. In this case, a local­ly adop­ted poli­cy would be more “restric­ti­ve” than North Caro­li­na law. (1) The audi­tor shall iden­ti­fy high-risk Type B pro­gram­mes at his pro­fes­sio­nal dis­cre­ti­on and in accordance with the cri­te­ria of § 200.519. Howe­ver, the audi­tor is not requi­red to iden­ti­fy more high-risk Type B pro­gram­mes than at least one quar­ter of the num­ber of low-risk Type A pro­gram­mes clas­si­fied as low-risk in accordance with Step 2 (point © of this sec­tion). With the excep­ti­on of known signi­fi­cant inter­nal con­trol weak­nes­ses or com­pli­an­ce issu­es, as dis­cus­sed in para­graph 200.519(b)(1) and (2) and ©(1), a sin­gle risk cri­ter­ion would rare­ly result in a Type B pro­gram being clas­si­fied as high risk.

When iden­ti­fy­ing Type B pro­grams to be eva­lua­ted, the audi­tor is advi­sed to use an approach that pro­vi­des the oppor­tu­ni­ty to be audi­ted of dif­fe­rent high-risk Type B pro­grams as the pri­ma­ry pro­gram over a peri­od of time. vii) Coor­di­na­ti­on of a manage­ment decisi­on for cross-sec­to­ral audit fin­dings (see § 200.1 of this sec­tion) for federal pro­grams of more than one agen­cy, at the request of a federal con­trac­ting agen­cy who­se respon­si­bi­li­ties are inclu­ded in the audit fin­ding of the audi­ted offi­cer. (6) Pro­vi­de the OMB with the name of a sin­gle cen­tral manage­ment audit liai­son offi­cer who: (3) The inclu­si­on of lar­ge risks and credit gua­ran­tees (loans) shall not result in the exclu­si­on of pro­grams other than Type A pro­grams. If a federal pro­gram that pro­vi­des loans exceeds four times the lar­gest non-credit pro­gram, it is con­si­de­red a signi­fi­cant loan pro­gram, and the audi­tor must con­si­der that federal pro­gram as a Type A pro­gram and exclu­de its values when deter­mi­ning other Type A programs.