National Urban Indian Council, DAB No. 897 (1987)

DEPARTMENTAL GRANT APPEALS BOARD

Department of Health and Human Services

SUBJECT: National Urban Indian Council

Docket No. 87-22
Audit Control No. 08-60550
Decision No. 897

DATE:  September 8, 1987

DECISION

The National Urban Indian Council (NUIC) appealed a disallowance by the
Office of Human Development Services (OHDS) of $444,118 received under
two Administration for Native American grants. The Office of Inspector
General, Office of Audit (OIGOA), of the Department of Health and Human
Services had performed a limited scope audit of grant funds awarded to
NUIC for the period October 1, 1982 through February 25, 1985.  OHDS
based the amount disallowed on the audit report as well as its
additional determinations.

The OIGOA audit recommended a disallowance of $210,911 ($157,109 for
costs found unallowable and $53,802 because of failure to meet
cost-sharing requirements).  The audit also set aside for further
determination $32,868 in property improvement costs and the question of
whether $79,000 in NUIC income was grant related. The auditors rejected
documentation offered by NUIC to show additional cost-sharing because
the items were not recorded in NUIC's general ledger nor sufficiently
detailed to be acceptable.

After reviewing the audit findings and documentation submitted by NUIC,
OHDS made additional determinations regarding the costs and income
questioned in the audit report.  OHDS determined that NUIC had
unallowable expenditures of $153,719, had received $211,399 in federal
funds in excess of the cost-sharing percentage allowed under the grants,
and had generated $79,000 in program income that was not applied to the
program in accordance with 45 CFR Part 74, Subpart F.

In its February 4, 1987 notice of appeal, NUIC stated that it was
compiling documentation for each of the costs questioned by OHDS.
Following a delay of several months.in which NUIC experienced difficulty
in retaining counsel, the Board gave NUIC until June 22, 1987 to submit
its brief and documentation supporting its claim.  When the Board had
not received a submission from NUIC, it contacted NUIC on July 1, 1987
and set a new deadline of July 10, 1987 for the submission of NUIC's
brief and documentation.  The Board noted that failure to meet this
deadline could result in the Board dismissing the appeal with prejudice
for failure to prosecute.  See 45 CFR 16.15(b).

On July 10, 1987, NUIC filed a submission which stated that, while all
the relevant documents were within the control of NUIC, NUIC had not
been able to compile all the documents to forward to the Board because
NUIC was dependent on voluntary help, including the services of the
former chief executive, who was on vacation. NUIC further stated that
only after an appeal file is developed could legal argument be submitted
in support of its claim.  The Board subsequently held a telephone
conference during which NUIC elaborated on its difficulties in compiling
the documentation. Based on this information, the Board granted NUIC an
extension to August 17, 1987 to present argument and documentation in
support of its claim.

By letter filed August 18, 1987, NUIC informed the Board that it could
not meet the Board's deadline.  In view of NUIC's repeated failure to
meet Board deadlines, the Board determined to proceed to decision on the
record already made, supplemented by the audit report, which OHDS
requested the Board to include.

Despite being given numerous opportunities and extensions of time to
refute the disallowance, NUIC failed to provide the Board with any
documentation to dispute the OHDS findings or anything other than the
conclusory statements in the notice of appeal about why conclusions
reached by OHDS are erroneous.

NUIC had requested a hearing to present testimony to dispute the
conclusion by OHDS that certain expenditures resulted from less than
arm's length transactions.  NUIC specifically disputed the finding that
NUIC's chief executive had an ownership interest in real property leased
by NUIC.  The Board directed NUIC to provide documentation concerning
the ownership of the real property if NUIC wished to pursue that issue,
but NUIC failed to supply any such documentation in its response and did
not renew its request for a hearing.  NUIC did submit some documentation
to the auditors (Appendix E to the Audit Report).  We have examined that
documentation and have concluded that the auditors properly rejected the
documents as insufficient to support NUIC's claims of cost-sharing.  See
45 CFR Part 74, Subpart G.  Furthermore, we have determined that the
other findings and conclusions by the auditors and OHDS appear
reasonable and consistent with the applicable grants management
provisions.

Accordingly, we sustain the disallowance in the full amount of $444,118
based on the audit report and the notice of disallowance, which we
incorporate by reference here.

 

                            _____________________________ Norval D.
                            (John) Settle


                            _____________________________ Cecilia Sparks
                            Ford


                            _____________________________ Judith A.
                            Ballard Presiding Board Member


 

This is archived HHS content.