My WebLink
|
Help
|
About
|
Sign Out
Home
Browse
Search
Reso 2018-2884
SIBFL
>
City Clerk
>
Resolutions
>
Regular
>
2018
>
Reso 2018-2884
Metadata
Thumbnails
Annotations
Entry Properties
Last modified
12/10/2018 10:15:54 AM
Creation date
10/31/2018 3:44:51 PM
Metadata
Fields
Template:
CityClerk-Resolutions
Resolution Type
Resolution
Resolution Number
2018-2884
Date (mm/dd/yyyy)
10/18/2018
Description
Auth. City Manager to Enter into Agmt w/FEMA for Reimbursements
There are no annotations on this page.
Document management portal powered by Laserfiche WebLink 9 © 1998-2015
Laserfiche.
All rights reserved.
/
71
PDF
Print
Pages to print
Enter page numbers and/or page ranges separated by commas. For example, 1,3,5-12.
After downloading, print the document using a PDF reader (e.g. Adobe Reader).
View images
View plain text
Attachment J <br />DHS OIG AUDIT ISSUES and ACKNOWLEDGEMENT <br />The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Office of Inspector General (OIG) was tasked by <br />Congress to audit all FEMA projects for fiscal year 2014. A synopsis of those findings are listed <br />below: <br />There have been 32 separate instances where Grantees/Recipients or Sub -Recipients did not follow the <br />prescribed rules to the point that the OIG believed the below listed violations could have nullified the <br />FEMA/State agreement. <br />1. Non Competitive contracting practices. <br />2. Failure to include required contract provisions. <br />3. Failure to employ the required procedures to ensure that small, minority, and women's owned firms <br />were all given fair consideration. <br />4. Improper "cost -plus -a -percentage -of -cost" contracting practices. <br />The following information comes directly from DHS's OIG Audit Tips for Managing Disaster Related <br />Project Costs; Report Number OIG -16-109-D dated July 1, 2016. The following may be reasons for <br />the disallowance or total de -obligation of funding given under the FEMA/State agreement: <br />1. Use of improper contracting practices. <br />2. Unsupported costs. <br />3. Poor project accounting. <br />4. Duplication of benefits. <br />5. Excessive equipment charges (applicability may vary with hazard mitigation projects). <br />6. Excessive labor and fringe benefit charges. <br />7. Unrelated project costs. <br />8. Direct Administrative Costs. <br />9. Failure to meet the requirement to obtain and maintain insurance. <br />Key Points that must be followed when Administering FEMA Grants: <br />Designate one person to coordinate the accumulation of records. <br />- Establish a separate and distinct account for recording revenue and expenditures, and a separate <br />identifier for each specific FEMA project. <br />Ensure that the final claim for each project is supported by amounts recorded in the accounting <br />system. <br />• Ensure that each expenditure is recorded in the accounting books and references supporting <br />sources of documentation (checks, invoices, etc.) that can be readily retrieved. <br />
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.