GAB Decision 300
May 25, 1982 The Community Action Commission of the Cincinnati Area;
Docket Nos. 81-199, 81-200 Settle, Norval; Teitz, Alexander Garrett,
Donald
The Community Action Commission of the Cincinnati Area (CAC, Grantee)
appealed two decisions by the Office of Human Development Services
(OHDS, Agency) involving a total of $70,670. In both cases OHDS found
that Grantee had not provided a sufficient amount for its non-federal
matching share, a condition brought about in part because CAC had failed
to document same of the non-federal share costs.
Docket No. 81-199 involved the period November 1, 1978 through
October 31, 1979. Because of a lack of or inadequate supporting
documentation, OHDS disallowed $11,298 in costs claimed by CAC as part
of its non-federal share. This reduction in the non-federal share also
reduced the allowable federal share, which could not exceed 80 percent
of total allowable cost. The Agency concluded that as a result CAC
would receive $15,498 less for the following grant year.
Docket No. 81-200 involved the period November 1, 1979 through
October 31, 1980. Because of a lack of or inadequate supporting
documentation, OHDS disallowed $28,560 in costs claimed by CAC as part
of its non-federal share. This reduction in the non-federal share also
reduced the allowable federal share, which could not exceed 80 per cent.
The Agency concluded that as a result CAC would receive $65,172 less for
the following grant year.
In its appeals, CAC did not dispute that the OHDS decisions were
correct given the information that CAC had supplied to OHDS. Instead,
CAC alleged that one of its components had underreported the value of
donated space. Thus, the amount relied on by OHDS in calculating the
non-federal share was less than it should have been, according to CAC.
Grantee alleged that it had additional data which would show that CAC
had a sufficient amount of non-federal share without any adjustment,
even after the disallowances.
In response, OHDS invited CAC to submit an audited listing of
additional non-federal costs. The Agency also explained the bases for
the disallowances and adjustments.
Grantee did not file a reply in either appeal, but on March 29 its
Director of Administration told the Board that CAC would file a
statement on the additional non-federal costs within a few days.
Grantee did not file any statement at that time.
(2) On May 12, 1982, in a telephone conference call with the Agency's
attorney and the Board, counsel for CAC again promised to supply the
match data so that the Agency would have it by May 17, 1982. However,
Grantee failed to meet that deadline. *
CONCLUSION
We find no alternative but to sustain the Agency's decisions without,
further delay. Grantee has not denied that the decisions were proper,
given the information supplied by CAC itself (and as yet not
contradicted). Grantee has had ample opportunity to come forward with
the additional data. The Agency is free to consider the data as it has
offered to do, and this affirmance is not a barrier to possible Agency
action to modify or withdraw its decisions. * By telephone on May 21,
1982, Grantee admitted that the promised material was not even mailed
until May 19, 1982. The Agency subsequently advised the Board that it
received the material on May 24, 1982, too late for a scheduled May 21
conference call which was to have been held with the Agency and the
Board.
OCTOBER 22, 1983