GAB Decision 418
Docket No. 82-247
April 29, 1983
Denver Native Americans United;
Garrett, Donald; Teitz, Alexander Ford, Cecilia
Denver Native Americans United (Grantee) appealed from a decision by
the Office of Human Development Services (Agency) disallowing $17,271 in
federal funds claimed by the Grantee. The Grantee filed its notice of
appeal with the Board on December 12, 1982. /1/ At that time the
Grantee indicated that it would be able to provide documentation for the
disputed costs which would resolve the issues raised by the appeal; the
Grantee did not state any other basis for its appeal. In its
acknowledgment of the appeal, the Board provided for the submission of
this documentation to the Agency. Nevertheless, the Grantee did not
submit any documentation to the Agency, in spite of numerous
opportunities and extensions of time to do so. Inl addition, the
Grantee subsequently did not file its appeal submission with the Board
by April 18, 1983, as required by the Board in accordance with 45 CFR
16.12(c)(1) (1981). The Grantee has not responded to the Board's
requests, both written and oral, for the submission of information. /2/
Therefore, as discussed below, we uphold the Agency decision to
disallow.
(2) Description of The Disallowance
Based on an audit (Audit Control No. 08-25174) for Grantee's 06
program year, ending June 30, 1980, the Agency determined the following:
* The Grantee claimed $1,893 for costs categorized as "travel,
equipment, supplies, and other," without providing sufficient
documentation to justify these costs;
* $3,600 for "uncleared checks" and $1,773 in equipment purchases
which the Agency determined were unauthorized should be disallowed; and
* There was inadequate documentation to justify in-kind costs
totalling $12,974: $2,500 claimed for volunteer services and $10,474
claimed as costs for space in excess of the amount of rent paid.
Since the federal share of the Grantee's expenditures is limited to
80% of allowable costs, the Agency calculated the disallowance in the
following manner (slightly modified for clarity):
Federal Costs $95,513 Incurred Less: Unallowable
costs ($1,893 + 3,600 7,266 + 1,773) Total
$88,247 Total Matching Costs 20,638 Less:
12,974 Unallowable Matching Costs Total
7,664 Total Allowable $95,911 Costs Incurred
X80 $76,729 Total Federal Funds $94,000 Received Less:
Allowable 76,729 Federal Share Federal Funds
$17,271 Overclaimed
Analysis
As the Agency indicated in its Brief (p. 5), the Grantee was bound by
the Standards for Grantee Financial Management Systems set out at 45 CFR
Part 74, Subpart H, (1979). The applicable regulation provides:
(3) SOURCE DOCUMENTATION. Accounting records shall be supported by
source documentation such as cancelled checks, paid bills, payrolls,
contract and subgrant award documents, etc. 45 CFR 74.61(g)
Further, the Board has consistently held that the Grantee has the
burden to document expenditures. Bullock County Health Services, Inc.,
Decision No. 360, November 30, 1982; Urban Indian Health Board, Inc.,
Decision No. 315, June 28, 1982; New York State Department of Social
Services, Decision No. 204, August 7, 1981.
The Grantee has presented nothing to contradict the Agency's
findings; accordingly, there is no evidence that the Grantee met the
standard established by the regulation. Additionally, since the Grantee
has not presented any information relevant to this disallowance to the
Board, there is no basis for overturning the Agency's determination to
disallow the undocumented costs, uncleared checks, and unauthorized
purchases.
Therefore, we uphold this disallowance. /1/ On December 23, 1982,
the Grantee perfected its appeal by submitting the disallowance
letter. /2/ Where "the appellant fails to meet any filing or
procedural deadlines, (or) appeal file or brief submission
requirements," the Board may dismiss, issue a decision on the existing
record, or take other appropriate action. (45 CFR 16.15) Here we
determined it appropriate to issue a decision based on the existing
record upholding the Agency's disallowance rather than dismiss the
appeal since the grantee alleged that it had documentation to resolve
the disallowed expenditures but failed to prove its case by not
submitting any documentation.
JULY 07, 1984