Require the Authority to determine how much laundry machine revenue was not deposited into its accounts and used for eligible purposes and reimburse its program from non-Federal funds.
2018-KC-1004 | September 27, 2018
The Benkelman Housing Authority, Benkelman, NE, Did Not Follow HUD Rules and Regulations for Public Housing Programs Related to Procurement and Maintenance, Tenant Certifications, Laundry Machine Income, and Expenditures
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-KC-1004-004-BOpenClosed
- Status2018-KC-1004-004-COpenClosed
Monitor the Authority to ensure compliance with its new laundry machine revenue policies.
2018-LA-1008 | September 27, 2018
The Housing Authority of the City of Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, Did Not Always Manage Its Legal Services in Compliance With HUD Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-LA-1008-001-AOpenClosed$793,101Questioned 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.
Provide documentation to show that $793,101 paid to the City for legal services was cost beneficial. Based on the documentation, it should reimburse its Housing Choice Voucher Program from non-Federal funds for any amount that exceeded the cost savings.
- Status2018-LA-1008-001-BOpenClosed
Follow the terms of the agreement, HUD requirements, and its own policies and procedures to ensure that any intergovernmental agreements for goods and services are in compliance.
2018-KC-0005 | September 27, 2018
HUD’s Travel Cards Were Used for Unauthorized, Unsupported, or Ineligible Purchases in at Least 950 Instances Totaling More Than $95,000
Chief Financial Officer
- Status2018-KC-0005-001-AOpenClosed$5,780Questioned 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 the 17 travel cardholders with purchases that occurred without a travel authorization and the 6 travel cardholders with purchases that were not supported to determine whether the purchases were allowable, proper, and paid in full by the cardholder, taking appropriate administrative actions as necessary. These unsupported purchases totaled $6,407. However, a total of $5,780 remains after deducting the duplicate amount of $627 addressed in Recommendation 1C.
- Status2018-KC-0005-001-BOpenClosed
Perform an analysis of the 3,045 travel card purchases with indications that they were unauthorized or ineligible to identify potential violations and to address any unauthorized purchases identified. OCFO should perform a review of identified transactions to determine whether they were allowable, proper, and paid in full by the cardholder, taking appropriate administrative actions as necessary.
- Status2018-KC-0005-001-COpenClosed$5,393Questioned 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.
Refer the 15 ineligible travel card transactions totaling $5,393 to the appropriate program office and obtain a response regarding what administrative actions were taken to resolve the violations. If no actions were taken, OCFO should request support to show why no corrective actions were taken.
- Status2018-KC-0005-001-DOpenClosed
Strengthen internal monitoring efforts regarding government travel card use to identify potentially improper, illegal, or erroneous transactions. Such efforts should include data mining to detect instances of delinquency, fraud, and misuse.
2018-NY-1005 | September 26, 2018
The Red Bank Housing Authority, Red Bank, NJ, Did Not Always Administer Its Operating and Capital Funds in Accordance With Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-NY-1005-001-AOpenClosed$252,000Questioned 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 HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide documentation to show that the $252,000 paid to the Long Branch Housing Authority was for eligible, reasonable, necessary, and allocable costs or reimburse its Operating and Capital Fund programs from non-Federal funds for any amount that it cannot support or that is not considered reasonable.
- Status2018-NY-1005-001-BOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing require the Authority to update its policies and procedures to ensure that any additional payments made under interagency agreements are adequately supported before payment is made and that the services are provided in accordance with applicable requirements. These requirements include but are not limited to HUD, Federal, and Authority requirements related to procurement, allocation of costs, and review and approval of payments.
- Status2018-NY-1005-001-COpenClosed$161,600Questioned 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 HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide documentation to show that the $161,600 paid for legal, fee accounting, and auditing services was for prices that were reasonable and that the costs were properly allocated among the Authority’s programs or reimburse its Operating and Capital Fund programs from non-Federal funds for any amount that it cannot support or is not considered reasonable
- Status2018-NY-1005-001-DOpenClosed$172,538Questioned 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 HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide documentation to show that $172,538 paid for goods and services was reasonable or reimburse its Operating and Capital Fund programs from non-Federal funds for any amount that it cannot support or that is not considered reasonable.
- Status2018-NY-1005-001-EOpenClosed$36,508Questioned 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 HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide documentation to show that $36,508 disbursed1 was for authorized and approved costs or reimburse its Operating and Capital Fund programs from non-Federal funds for any amount that it cannot support.
- Status2018-NY-1005-001-FOpenClosed
We recommend that the Director of HUD’s Newark Office of Public Housing provide technical assistance to the Authority to help ensure that 1) future interagency agreements, including the renewal of its agreement with Long Branch clearly outline the expectations and documentation required to show that work was performed, (2) its board provides adequate oversight of work performed under interagency agreements, and 3) it complies with HUD, Federal, and Authority procurement requirements when purchasing goods and services.
2018-NY-1006 | September 26, 2018
The Buffalo Municipal Housing Authority, Buffalo, NY, Did Not Administer Its Operating Funds in Accordance With Requirements
Public and Indian Housing
- Status2018-NY-1006-001-AOpenClosed$583,920Questioned 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 Acting Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide documentation to show that the $583,920 paid to two vendors for purchase orders below the Authority’s micropurchase limit was for prices that were reasonable or reimburse its Operating Fund from non-Federal funds for any amount that it cannot support or is not considered reasonable.
- Status2018-NY-1006-001-BOpenClosed$842,931Questioned 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 Acting Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide documentation to show that $842,931 paid under five contracts was for prices that were reasonable or reimburse its Operating Fund for any amount that it cannot support or is not considered reasonable.
- Status2018-NY-1006-001-COpenClosed
We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Public Housing require the Authority to strengthen its controls over purchases to ensure compliance with HUD, Federal, and Authority procurement requirements. This includes, but is not limited to, controls to ensure that it (1) maintains records sufficient to detail the significant history of procurements, (2) complies with requirements for each type of procurement, (3) obtains independent cost estimates and performs cost or price analyses when required, and (4) prevents and detects conflict-of-interest situations.
- Status2018-NY-1006-001-DOpenClosed
We recommend that the Acting Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide training to its staff to ensure compliance with HUD and Federal procurement requirements.
- Status2018-NY-1006-002-AOpenClosed$372,695Questioned 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 Acting Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide documentation to justify the $372,695 in unsupported Operating Fund subsidies received or reimburse its Operating Fund from non-Federal funds for any amount it cannot support.
- Status2018-NY-1006-002-BOpenClosed$8,564Questioned 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 Acting Director of HUD’s Buffalo Office of Public Housing require the Authority to provide documentation to justify $8,564 in excessive property management fees charged by the COCC or reimburse its Operating Fund from non-Federal funds for any amount it cannot support.