INTER-INSTITUTIONAL COMMITTEE ON FINANCE & ACCOUNTING
Post Award Administration
Meeting Minutes
Embassy Altamonte Springs, FL
Wednesday, February 4, 2015
Post Award Administration Subcommittee (1:00 PM – 2:20PM)
Members:Brenda Harrell, (UF), ChairAngie Rowe, FSU
Jim Wilkie, FAU Beth Dhondt, USF (phone) Donna Frazee, UWF Michelle Greco, UCF Cheresa Boston, UNF Rebecca Puig, USF
Kim Bendickson, NCF
Members Absent:Wanda Ford, FAMU
Tracy Clark, UCF
Other Attendees:Valerie Stevenson, UNFBrenda Johnson, UCF
Kate Hebert, ICOFARuss Nally, USF Jennifer Condon, USF Aida Reus, FIU
Brad Bennett, UFBonnie Bair, FIU
Alexander Mirabel, FIU(phone)Barbara Matthews, FIU
Glen Carson, UCFWilliam Pollard, UWF
Kelly D’Agostino, UCF Andrea Bynum, FIU
Alan West, UFDan Mayo, UCF
Nancy Viafora, UNFSheila Rojas, FPU
Doyle Pitt, UWF(phone)Michelle Chiu-Hung, FIU (phone)
Jose Zubimendi, FIU (phone)Sherry Adams, UF
a)ONR visit, UF - Federal PropertySherry Adams
UF is undergoing anONR visit andhave a scheduled desk review every year to look at self-assessment and the desk manual. They had a site visit last year and FSUis also undergoing a site visit. At FSU they are looking for the self-assessment. As part of that assessment they are looking for the 10 items for property management fromacquisition all the way to disposition and who is designated to handle those steps. They also reviewed the property manual and they were asked to add more detail to this manual. No one else had been contacted for an audit.
FSU responded to their desk audit and is due tomorrow. They had not been doing a self-assessment but are now instituting a procedure. They do not have a separate manual for federal property and are not aware of a threshold for the desk audit.
FAU was affected by the change in threshold for DO2.
ONR is the agency incharge of federal property. They are reviewing all property from a federal acquisition regardless of if the grant is still open or not.
b)Review and Approval of Meeting Agenda
n) Use of lab equipment paid for from grant funds for other grants/purposes - Kim Bendickson
c)Review and Approval of Meeting Minutes
Approved with no changes
d)Subcommittee Changes
Rebecca Puig is the new member for USF.
e)Action Items
- State Agencies – Payment of Invoices issues Brenda Harrell
Attachments
DFS White paper
Survey – issues with state invoicing
DFS white paper:
There were action items that were not followed-up on, including number 7, stating DFS will review CFO memo for possible revisions. They had marked this as closed, andDFS says it has been revised but no one has seen evidence of the revision. The agencies are requiring detailed ledgers be maintained, but the 1997/98 memo recommends state agencies accept detailed ledgers on a random basis. The memo does not contain the word “shall” and therefore the agencies are requiring for all invoices instead of random samples.
Item #8 on the white paper is regarding the documentation requirementsand sufficient support. DFS is to draft language regarding sampling and quoted a 1996/97 CFO memo that eliminates state universities from having to provide detailed ledgers and they recommend each agency consult their legal office for sampling.
Item #15is regarding invoice processing training. They replied that the invoice processing requirements are discussed in both advance accountability training and the new Florida certified contract manager course. This is a joint course provided by the Dept of Management Services and Dept of Financial Services. There has not been a response to the request to know if current staff were being required to attend training or just new employees. A website is supposed to be developed, should have been available in June last year (item #16). Brenda will inquire when this website will be made available.
New CFO memo #02 in 2012/13 Contract and Grant Review and related payment processing requirements, but it does not appear to supersede any of the memos as far back as what has been discussed above.
The CFO memos are all available at myfloridaCFO.com; the links to the CFO memos are on the left side on the website.
f)DFS Response Brenda Harrell
We did collect new issues from the universities dealing with state agencies. They no longer want to pay fringe benefits on old grants and are stating that it is due to DFS. DFS has yet to respond to this issue. It was recommended to ask the agency to send the documentation as to where DFS stated that fringe is no longer to be paid on research activities.
UF had to write a letter promising to run cost sharing 3 times per year. The agency again stated that it was a DFS requirement. FAU also received a 37 page contract from the Dept of Agriculture requesting a lot of documentation before they will make payments.
UF also received approval for their travel form approved by DFS. Some agencies were aware of this approval, but we are unaware of how they were informed. FSU would like to utilize the same process, as they also use PeopleSoft. UF travel form was approved by DFS via e-mail.
Action Item: Kate or Brenda to send out the approved travel form.
It was requested that all issues be sent to Kate so she can consolidate and get them to Brenda to send to DFS.
g)Problem Payer List Brenda Harrell
UF – Hearing health Science
USF – RFID Solutions
USF – Keilir Atlantic Center of Excellency
FIU – Pacific Consensus (had been previously added)
h)Audit Updates Brenda Harrell
FAU – They just had the exit interview for A-133. The Financial Aidoffice had some issuesregarding segregation of controls within the ERP system. They also have an old NSF audit going on for about 2 ½ years, and just received notice that the audit is closed.
NCF – A-133 audit sited ERP access issues.
USF –Received 2 written findings for their A-133 audit, related to verification of the last date of academic activity and R&D. Five purchasing cardswere used for registration fees and service center charges for telecommunication costs schedule rates.
FSU – Has several audits on-going, they had a visit for the MSF mag lab review, NSF review and ONR desk review.
UF – A-133 audit had no findings. They are in the final stages of NSF audit by an outside firm, Williams, Smith, Brown. The same firm is preforming the NSF audit for both FSU and UF. The two month rule was the biggest concern and it is still unclear when the 2 month rule starts. UF determined they would use the calendar year. Some other universities are using the academic year. The auditors said if the students were named in the grant they are subject to 2 month rule and UF states they should not be included.
UF’s HHS audit is still going on; it has been going on for 4 or 5 years. They came back on campus and are auditing the year UF converted to PeopleSoft. They are concentrating on effort reporting, it has been a very time consuming audit. There was information posted about project based effort reporting and the auditors determined that the California Universities could not support the data. The project based reports do not always reconcile to the financial statements. Brenda will keep the group updated.
UWF – DOL and A-133 with no findings.
i)NSF’s 2/9 Rule Brenda Harrell
What are other universities using for the 2 month rule for year, calendar, academic or fiscal?
FSU, NCF, UWF and UNF all use academic, others were unsure.
FSU and UF will get together to discuss the 2 month rule and which year to use.
j)Maximus Call follow-upJim Wilkie
As a follow-up to yesterday's meeting with Maximus, Kris Rhodes mentioned that although CAS 502 items are now allowable on federal projects when they are appropriate, they may still need prior approval from the sponsor. Can you check with your FDP colleagues toclarify whether prior approvals to "rebudget between cost categories" and the "inclusion of costs requiring prior approval" would continue to be waived for awards subject to FDP? The current FDP matrix would waive acquiring prior approval for those costs which require prior approval under the Cost Principles (UG).
FAU consulting group came in and they think there has to be prior approval for items that are CAS 502. At FAU, some PIs thought because of uniform guidance,theydid not have to go through approval to buy attractive items. FAU is taking the stance that people still have to have approval to buy such items. The approval occurs during the proposal process. FAU is coming up on a base year and they just got 5 points, so not sure if they are going to do another proposal.
UF did not change the practice of going through the approval process to buy attractive items. The ERP system blocks users from using certain cost codes pertaining to buying items such as computers. Even if the equipment is in the proposal, they still require separate approval.
UFs base year is 2014, new UCA could increase rate by as much as 3 points in indirect cost returns. UCA is a separate submission. Since most of the rest of the country is in the mid-50s they are hoping to get an increase. They did not take an extension.
k)Update on Omni Circular /2CFR200 Brenda Harrell
New circular was effective December 26, 2014.
UF created a website to provide guidance regarding the new procedures based on the new circular. They had too many departments asking questions regarding putting the 1% administration salaries on the grants and other questions regarding the new circular. In order to stop that influx, they set up the website and stated that a minimum of 20% of the faculty’s time must be spent on the award to ask for the 1% to be included on the grant request.
UF has too many audits to not continue to do effort reporting and this is included in the website they have created. During UF’s DHHS audit they are responding by asking DHHS to look at what UF is doing now as far as effort reporting. UF is not getting rid of any of the effort “internal controls”, payroll still needs to be reviewed and documented.
The part of the circular onthe procurement threshold for anything on a grant over $3K needs to go through the competitive bid process has been delayed 6 months. No one had any updates on this topic. COGAR is involved and trying to get this changed.
l)Training Opportunities Brenda Harrell
Financial Research Administrators – March 5-7 in Orlando, FL
m)Other comments questions Brenda Harrell
Brenda made a request for topics for the agenda. This subcommittee is for sharing and needs participation from all universities. Hoping more people will send in agenda items for future meetings.
n) Use of lab equipment paid for from grant funds, for other grants Kim Bendickson
Sarasota County wants to have one of New College’s employees complete experiments on a piece of equipment that New College acquired through a grant. How do others allocate costs out?
Other universities have an auxiliary committee, but New College does not. UF will share a template that they use for a similar situation. It includes unit of cost, person’s time, a self-developed administrative overhead rate, depreciation, university facilities, use of equipment, use of materials, market comparison, UBIT, verification they are not taking business away from the local community and cannot have excess income.
There needs to be a formal contract and every 2 years be reviewed as a recharge center. UF will charge internal as well as external customers. UF and FAU recharge policy limits, university mission.
The biggest question is “Does it support the university’s mission?”
UF also has animal services tracking, for all aspects of the service. FAU allows outside agencies to rent/lease space for their animals.
o) Charge grant for use of university vehiclesDonna Frazee
DFS has told UFto charge mileage for state grants but allothers are charged actual mileage as long as the employees are not being reimbursed from travel.
1 | Page