We recommend that HUD’s Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs require the State to strengthen controls to ensure that future Disaster Recovery funds used for appraisal services and quality control reviews under the program are for costs that are reasonable, necessary, supported, and for services that comply with applicable requirements.
2019-NY-1002 | Mayo 29, 2019
The State of New York Did Not Ensure That Appraised Values Used by Its Program Were Supported and Appraisal Costs and Services Complied With Requirements
Community Planning and Development
- Status2019-NY-1002-002-FOpenClosed
2019-FW-0001 | Mayo 17, 2019
HUD CPD Did Not Enforce the Disaster Appropriations Act, 2013, 24-Month Grantee Expenditure Requirement
Community Planning and Development
- Status2019-FW-0001-001-AOpenClosed$167,254,244Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs require two grantees to repay $167,254,244 for grants funds spent in excess of the amount obligated for a round.
- Status2019-FW-0001-001-BOpenClosed$24,409,255Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs require five grantees to repay $24,409,255 for grant funds spent before the grantee had signed a grant round agreement obligating the funds.
- Status2019-FW-0001-001-COpenClosed$334,441,871Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs require four grantees to repay $334,441,871 for grant funds spent by the grantee after the grant round’s 24-month expenditure deadline had expired.
- Status2019-FW-0001-001-DOpenClosed$524,289Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs recapture $524,289 in grant funds, which the grantee had not reported spent by the grant round expenditure deadline, and return the funds to the U.S. Treasury as HUD can no longer reobligate the funds.
- Status2019-FW-0001-001-EOpenClosed$413,530,414Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
We recommend that Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs adopt and enforce new written policies, procedures, and internal controls for all CDBG Disaster Recovery funds that have a statutory grantee expenditure deadline, which will ensure that $413,530,414 in 2013 Act funds will be put to better use.
- Status2019-FW-0001-001-FOpenClosed
We recommend that Deputy Assistant Secretary for Grant Programs take action to correct and address the DRGR system material internal control weaknesses identified in this report.
2019-FW-1002 | Mayo 15, 2019
The Weslaco Housing Authority, Weslaco, TX, Did Not Follow Federal, State, and Authority Requirements for Legal Services
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2019-FW-1002-001-AOpenClosed$97,170Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that the Director of the San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to support or repay its HUD program accounts from non-Federal funds $97,170 paid for unsupported legal services, of which $29,111 was paid with Housing Choice Voucher Program funds and $68,059 was paid with operating funds.
- Status2019-FW-1002-001-BOpenClosed$21,000Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
We recommend that the Director of the San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to support or repay its HUD program accounts from non-Federal funds $21,000 paid for unreasonable and unnecessary retainer fees for those months when the Authority did not hold a regular meeting, of which $7,112 was paid with Housing Choice Voucher Program funds and $13,888 was paid with operating funds.
- Status2019-FW-1002-001-COpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of the San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to revise its procurement policies to include, either in their entirety or by reference, the current Federal cost principles.
- Status2019-FW-1002-001-DOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of the San Antonio Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide training to commissioners and employees on Federal procurement and cost principles requirements and have them certify that they understand and will comply with the requirements.
2019-AT-1003 | Mayo 08, 2019
The Talladega Housing Authority, Talladega, AL, Generally Administered Its Rental Assistance Demonstration Conversion in Accordance With HUD Requirements but Did Not Comply With Critical Renovations Regulations
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2019-AT-1003-001-AOpenClosed$65,240Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Repay to the public housing program from non-Federal funds the $32,620 in ineligible housing assistance it received from HUD.
- Status2019-AT-1003-001-BOpenClosed$3,402Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Repay to the Treasury from non-Federal funds the $3,402 in ineligible administrative fees it received from HUD.
- Status2019-AT-1003-001-COpenClosed
Establish effective procedures and controls to verify that it receives correct products from its vendors and ensures the proper completion of renovation work by its contractors.
2019-BO-1002 | Mayo 07, 2019
The Housing Authority of the City of Woonsocket, RI, Did Not Always Comply With Capital Fund Program and Procurement Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2019-BO-1002-001-AOpenClosed$1,864,914Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Repay from non-Federal sources the $1,864,914 in ineligible costs related to environmental deficiencies
- Status2019-BO-1002-001-BOpenClosed$85,204Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Repay from non-Federal sources the $85,204 in ineligible costs related to payments made beyond the contract terms.
- Status2019-BO-1002-001-COpenClosed$101,052Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Support that the $101,052 spent for one activity followed Federal environmental review requirements or repay this amount from non-Federal funds.
- Status2019-BO-1002-001-DOpenClosed$1,325,967Questioned Costs
Recommendations with questioned costs identify costs: (A) resulting from an alleged violation of a law, regulation, contract, grant, or other document or agreement governing the use of Federal funds; (B) that are not supported by adequate documentation (also known as an unsupported cost); or (C) that appear unnecessary or unreasonable.
Support that the $1,325,967 spent for activities was fair and reasonable in accordance with Federal procurement requirements or repay from non-Federal funds any amounts that cannot be supported
- Status2019-BO-1002-001-EOpenClosed$113,710Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Deobligate $113,710 in funds not yet spent on ineligible activities with environmental review deficiencies and work with HUD to determine whether these funds can be reobligated to eligible activities.
- Status2019-BO-1002-001-FOpenClosed$11,781Funds Put to Better Use
Recommendations that funds be put to better use estimate funds that could be used more efficiently. For example, recommendations that funds be put to better use could result in reductions in spending, deobligation of funds, or avoidance of unnecessary spending.
Deobligate $11,781 in funds not yet spent on ineligible activities related to activities that exceeded contract terms and work with HUD to determine whether these funds can be reobligated to eligible activities