The EPA disallowed $384,678.00 in costs incurred under a grant to a non-profit Nevada Corporation. The reason for the majority of the disallowance was that several sole source contracts were awarded for legal and consulting work with no cost or price analysis done so as to demonstrate the fees paid were fair and reasonable. The regulations are clear that in all procurements, but especially sole source, the grantee must demonstrate that a fair price was received.
The EPA also disallowed $18,265.00 in travel related costs due to a lack of documentation.
To read the entire report, please click here.
The grant started in 2004. Is this the first audit? (Apparently it is.) Didn't EPA require yearly independent audits? or even GAO audits? Why not? or did they just not read them? Did not EPA qualify the the grantee prior to issuing the grant? What was the failure in the qualification process?
ReplyDeleteThe cost to prepare the EPA audit and report was $82,312.
You see, everyone, the real failure is EPA's in willy-nilly giving out taxpayer's money to a non-taxpayer without any real controls except by happenstance - the audit was initiated by luck-of-the-draw, that is, EPA's inspector general just happened to "select" the Walker Lake grant to be audited at this time.
EPA is bloated, out of control, and is as corrupt as Congress is. They give out grants not for a project's good but to buy votes for Congressmen. Then they occassionally pretend like they are keeping track of funds by randomly auditing a few grantees. If the grantee is a non-profit, like Walker Lake, and has critical findings including costs recoverable by the government, and the entity has no capability of paying back those costs, then the entity simply goes bankrupt. Easy money, easy as pie, votes bought.
That is why the EPA is a darling of the liberal left - it is black hole of unaccountability, like Fannie and Freddie, perfect for sluicing out payola.