Provide procurement training to its staff members who work on CDBG program activities and ensure that staff members comply with HUD requirements and use its current procurement policy.
Publication Report
2018-LA-1006 | July 25, 2018
The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency, Sacramento, CA, Did Not Always Use Community Development Block Grant Funds in Accordance with HUD Requirements or Its Own Policies
We audited the Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency’s Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) program, based on an Office of Inspector General risk assessment and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) concerns. The… moreRelated Recommendations
Community Planning and Development
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-AOpenClosedClosed on March 11, 2019$272,569.00Questioned 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 59 contracts awarded for the emergency repair program were fair and reasonable or repay its program $272,569 from non-Federal funds.
Obtain technical assistance from HUD to revise its Emergency Repair Program to meet CDBG requirements.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-COpenClosedClosed on March 06, 2019$50,000.00Questioned 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 contract awarded for the food incubator study was fair and reasonable and met a final cost objective or repay its program $50,000 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-DOpenClosedClosed on November 13, 2018$48,895.00Questioned 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 change orders executed outside the scope of the Colonial Heights Library contract were fair and reasonable or repay its program $48,895 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-EOpenClosedClosed on March 06, 2019$13,950.00Questioned 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 contract awarded for the Boys and Girls Club feasibility study was fair and reasonable and met a final cost objective or repay its program $13,950 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-GOpenClosedClosed on November 13, 2018$55,200.00Questioned 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 entrepreneur center feasibility study met a final cost objective or repay its program $55,200 from non-Federal funds.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-HOpenClosedClosed on March 18, 2019$283.00Questioned 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.
Reimburse its program $283 from non-Federal funds for unallowable bottled water costs.
- Status2018-LA-1006-001-IOpenClosedClosed on March 18, 2019$141.00Questioned 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.
Review all invoices provided from its minor repair subrecipient between January 1, 2015, and December 31, 2017, and repay the program from non-Federal funds for all bottled water service payments not identified in this audit report.
Provide training to its employees regarding allowable costs to ensure that all costs submitted by contractors and subrecipients are eligible for reimbursement.