Department of Health and Human Services
DEPARTMENTAL APPEALS BOARD
Appellate Division
SUBJECT: Dallas County Community Action Committee, Inc.
DATE: July 8, 1991
Docket No. 90-199
Audit Nos. A-06-89-07034 A-06-89-05199 A-06-89-08063
Decision No. 1265
DECISION
The Administration for Children and Families (ACF) 1/ issued
three
disallowances under the Head Start program, 42 U.S.C. . 9831 et
seq.,
totalling $1,093,599 to Dallas County Community Action Committee,
Inc.
(DCCAC), based on three audits. DCCAC appealed to the Board,
arguing
that the audit reports failed to meet federal standards and were
so
flawed as to be unreliable bases for the disallowances taken by
ACF.
ACF argued that the audits met federal requirements, with
some
exceptions that did not affect the substance of the
disallowances.
Further, ACF contended that DCCAC had ample opportunity to
present
documentation on the costs questioned by the auditors and failed to
do
so during the audit resolution process as well as during this
appeal.
We find that the audit findings and resulting recommendations formed
a
sufficiently reliable basis to support disallowances, in the absence
of
an adequate response from DCCAC providing information or
affirmative
documentation for its questioned costs. DCCAC failed to
meet its burden
of proof to support its costs and never offered any evidence
that it had
auditable records documenting the questioned areas.
Accordingly, we
uphold the disallowance with regard to each category of
questioned
costs. However, we remand for recalculation the
disallowances for two
of the audits since we find an apparent error in the
disallowances with
regard to the questioned non-federal share amounts.
ACF simply
disallowed the questioned non-federal share amounts in lieu
of
calculating the amount of federal funds properly disallowed by virtue
of
the excess value claimed as non-federal share. To the extent
DCCAC
disputes the recalculation of the disallowed amounts, DCCAC may
return
to the Board for review of this limited issue only. Any further
appeal
must be filed within 30 days of receiving ACF's determination of
the
proper calculation.
Issue
Should these disallowances be reversed due to flaws in the audit
reports,
even though DCCAC has not offered any information or
affirmative
documentation to refute the bases for ACF's disallowances?
Background
Head Start grantees are required to obtain independent audits and
submit
them to the responsible official within four months after each
budget
period ends. 45 C.F.R. .1301.12 (1990) (These requirements were
the
same over the relevant years.). DCCAC obtained the three audits 2/
in
question covering three program years during which it received
federal
funds under several programs, including Head Start.
The audit reports were each received and scrutinized by the Office
of
Audit of the Office of the Inspector General (OAOIG) before
being
forwarded to ACF. In each case, OAOIG sent a letter to DCCAC
reporting
completion of its review of the audit report and stating that
each
report involved met "the Federal reporting requirements prescribed
in
the Comptroller General's standards," 3/ with certain
exceptions
(discussed in detail below). In each case, the OAOIG's
letter accepted
the report despite these exceptions but told DCCAC to
instruct its
auditors to meet these requirements in the future.
The OAOIG provided its own analysis of the audit findings.
OAOIG
prepared specific recommendations for financial adjustments to
be
resolved by ACF. OAOIG requested that DCCAC respond to
its
recommendations by providing comments or information to ACF.
DCCAC
provided no response whatsoever to audit nos. 1 and 2. Its
response to
audit no. 3 is not in the record but was discussed in the
disallowance
letter, resulting in no adjustments to the categories of
costs
disallowed. 4/
Audit no. 1 questioned $4,118.12 in costs for particular sampled
employee
and non-payroll transactions that were undocumented or
unallowable.
Monetary amounts were also questioned with regard to
other
recommendations. The audit pointed out the need for an
updated
appraised value for space, but did not recommend a specific
financial
adjustment in the matching share amount. Audit no. 2 noted
that DCCAC
still had no current appraisal on file to support the value of
rental
space as an in-kind contribution. 5/ The auditors did not find
support
for the valuation of the fair rental value of space which the
grantee
had counted toward its required matching share. Nevertheless,
the
auditors did not question the entire amount, but only the excess
of
$197,879 over the amount they estimated to be fair market value. 6/
The
auditors also questioned undocumented in-kind amounts attributed
to
volunteer services ($18,140), donated supplies ($10,329), and use
of
other space ($39,459). 7/ Audit no. 3 questioned excess cash
drawdowns
of $312,485 (this figure was adjusted in the disallowance as
explained
below), payments of $44,111 for employee medical expenses
without
documentation of allowability, and, once again, the excess value
of
in-kind contribution of space without current independent
appraisals
($255,826).
The disallowance resulting from audit no. 1 used amounts drawn from
the
I.G.'s analysis of the audit findings to arrive at a total of
$4,424.
The disallowance resulting from audit no. 2 totalled
$265,807,
comprising all the questioned matching share. The figure used
in the
disallowance resulting from audit no. 3 totalled $823,368, reflecting
an
adjustment to the cash drawdown amount to account for the
total
unobligated federal fund balance in addition to the questioned
amounts
for undocumented expenses and matching share (see fn. 9 infra).
Analysis
1. The audit reports, while flawed in some respects, formed
reliable
bases for ACF to take disallowances.
DCCAC argued that the audit reports were so fundamentally flawed that
they
could not be relied on as a rational basis for action and instead
should have
been rejected by the OAOIG. ACF contended that the faults
found with
the reports were wholly irrelevant to the bases for the
disallowances.
We next examine the particular problems with each report
and their relevance
to the findings underlying these disallowances.
Audit no. 1, OAOIG letter dated July 21, 1989, DCCAC Exhibit (Ex.) 2:
-- The report was submitted late to OAOIG.
-- The report omits comments on the status of prior
audit
findings.
-- The report did not include comments and a plan of
corrective
action from DCCAC.
Audit no. 2, OAOIG letter dated June 16, 1989, DCCAC Ex. 4:
-- The report was late.
-- The report does not cover a full twelve month period for
some
federal programs.
-- The Schedule of Federal and State Financial
Assistance
(SFSFA) in the report does not separately identify direct
and
indirect federal funding and combines funds from the Head
Start
and Child Care Food Programs.
-- The report should contain recommendations for
corrective
action regarding specific problems.
-- The report did not include comments and a plan of
corrective
action from DCCAC.
Audit no. 3, OAOIG letter dated August 25, 1989, DCCAC Ex. 6:
-- The report does not contain an auditor's opinion on
the
supplementary schedules to the basic financial statements.
-- The SFSFA has the same problems mentioned in Audit no. 2.
-- The report omits comments on the status of prior
audit
findings.
-- The report did not include comments and a plan of
corrective
action from DCCAC.
There is no basis in this record to conclude that the reliability of
the
findings resulting in the disallowances was affected by these
problems
and, in any event, the responsibility for most of them lies with
DCCAC
itself. 8/ DCCAC can hardly be heard to complain about its own
failure
to provide comments on the findings or about the lateness of
audits
which it obtained. Furthermore, the auditors' inability to issue
an
opinion on certain financial statements apparently resulted from
DCCAC's
refusal to provide a client letter normally required in an audit
to
confirm representations made orally. Audit no. 3 at 11.
Obviously,
DCCAC is itself responsible for this refusal and cannot benefit
now from
any resultant limitations on the audits. That the audits did
not
specify how DCCAC might correct some of its problems or did not
comment
on any efforts made to correct prior year's findings does not
undermine
the accuracy of the audit findings that recommended
financial
adjustments.
DCCAC strongly argued that the auditors' failure in audit nos. 2 and 3
to
identify Head Start funds separately in the SFSFA undercut the
validity of
the calculations of matching share and excess cash
drawdowns, which
represented the bulk of the disallowances. DCCAC's
position rested on
the contention that the OAOIG and ACF had
rubber-stamped the audit findings
without any independent review.
However, it is apparent that ACF was willing to consider
additional
information available to it. For example, the disallowance
letter
resulting from audit no. 3 states that further information was
submitted
by DCCAC and considered by ACF. DCCAC Ex. 6. DCCAC can
hardly complain
if the information on which ACF acted was limited by DCCAC's
lack of
cooperation with its auditors and overall failure to resolve the
audit
findings by offering either alternative calculations or
supporting
documentation. In addition, ACF recalculated the unobligated
federal
fund balance from audit no. 3 based on its own review of prior
periods,
demonstrating that ACF had access to and used its own records
concerning
the grantee's funding history. 9/ Before reaching ACF, the
audit
reports had been reviewed by the federal auditors at the OAOIG,
who
found the reports reliable for federal purposes and
recommended
financial adjustments. Plainly, ACF did not blindly accept
all of the
audit findings or unreasonably rely on the audit reports, as
DCCAC
contended.
The OAOIG letters relating to audit nos. 2 and 3 also advise
federal
officials to "use caution" in relying on the audits. DCCAC Exs.
4 and
6. DCCAC stressed that this warning should have caused the OAOIG
or ACF
to reject the audits, instead of basing disallowances on them.
In
regard to audit no. 2, the reason given for advising caution is that
the
"auditors were . . . unable to express an opinion on the
financial
statements . . . due to two limitations on the scope of
their
examination." DCCAC Ex. 4 at 2. However, the audit report
discloses
that these limitations were again the result of DCCAC's refusal
to
furnish the client representation letter and of restrictions placed
on
the auditors' inquiries due to the sensitivity of an ongoing
criminal
investigation of certain payments made by DCCAC. Similarly, in
regard
to audit no. 3, the OAOIG's letter advised caution because
auditors
could not express an opinion on the financial statements, but again
the
opinion was withheld because of the lack of a client
representation
letter. DCCAC Ex. 6; Audit no. 3 at 11. In
addition, the auditors'
opinions were qualified due to their uncertainty
about DCCAC's ability
to continue as a going concern. Obviously, the
grounds for caution here
related to DCCAC's instability and lack of
cooperation with the
auditors, not to doubts about the reliability of the
findings in the
audit reports that underlie these disallowances.
DCCAC charged that the OAOIG should have gone behind the audit reports
and
reviewed the work papers, which are documents prepared and retained
by
auditors that are supposed to reflect the evidence and work on which
their
findings are based. See "Yellow Book" at 6-21 to 6-22.
However,
despite considerable debate about the OAOIG's role in
reviewing
independent audits, DCCAC never pointed to any authority obliging
the
OAOIG to examine the work papers and we do not find any. DCCAC
argued,
nevertheless, that once DCCAC demonstrated to the Board the
inadequacy
of the supporting work papers, ACF should have come forward with
proof
of their adequacy or independent sources for the disallowance.
10/ We
reject this analysis, which rests on DCCAC's
fundamental
misunderstanding of the burden of proof in this case.
2. The burden of proof in this case lay with DCCAC to resolve
the
questions raised by the audit findings.
DCCAC described the burden of proof as resting initially with
the
government to demonstrate a reasonable basis for its disallowance
and,
to do so, to prove that the underlying audit reports are reliable.
Only
then would the grantee be required to respond to audit findings.
DCCAC
Reply Br. at 10; Tr. at 6. This is not correct.
Every Head Start grantee has an initial and continuing obligation
to
document its use of federal funds. 42 U.S.C. . 9842(a); 45
C.F.R.
74.61. A grantee cannot evade this fundamental obligation by
alleging
that its auditors have not adhered to all federal standards.
See
Pennsylvania Dept. of Public Welfare, DAB No. 485 at 12 (1983).
When
confronted with a similar effort by a grantee under another program
to
avoid a disallowance by criticizing the audit process that led to it,
we
described the grantee's duty to document its costs as follows:
The appellant here challenged the audit; however,
its arguments do
not overcome the initial burden
placed on a grantee to establish
with documentation
the allowability of costs claimed. The
responsibility to support costs with documentation begins at
the
time the cost is incurred and charged to the
grant. This
responsibility to support costs,
however, does not stop there. If
an audit
report makes findings that certain claims for
expenditures
are not proper, the grantee has a
continued responsibility to show
in response to that
audit, and again later during an appeal of
those
findings, that its claim was proper.
Urban Indian Health Board, Inc., DAB No. 315 at 3 (1982). DCCAC
has
failed to meet this burden.
Furthermore, DCCAC obtained and took responsibility for these audits
by
submitting them for the purpose of having federal agencies rely on
them.
OMB Circular A-73, section 8.e, provides that "[p]rimary
responsibility
for audits of federally assisted programs rests with
recipient
organizations." DCCAC cannot submit a flawed but acceptable
audit to
satisfy its audit obligation and then seek to attack the
audit's
reliability. The purpose of requiring independent audits to
meet
federal standards is to safeguard federal funds, not to protect
the
grantee proffering the audit from responding to its findings.
Where we have dismissed disallowances for lack of a reasonable basis,
our
concern has been that grantees be provided a sufficiently clear
statement of
which costs are questioned and why. For example, we will
not require a
grantee to respond to a disallowance of a portion of an
aggregate claim
without knowing how the portion was determined, see,
e.g., Massachusetts
Dept. of Public Welfare, Docket No. 89-23
(1989)(Ruling on Motion to
Dismiss), or to a disallowance based on an
overallocation of administrative
costs without an explanation of how the
auditors allocated the costs.
New York State Dept. of Social Services,
DAB No. 520 at 20 (1984).
By contrast, these audit reports, while flawed, unquestionably raise
clear
and reasonable questions. The disallowances are specific about
which
costs are disallowed and for what reason. There is no unfairness
in
requiring DCCAC to respond to the substantive issues when they are
set forth
with clarity and specificity.
Moreover, DCCAC has not shown any prejudice as a result of any
inadequacy
in the disallowances. As noted below, DCCAC made no claim
that it ever
had the documents to support the questioned costs or to
challenge the
calculations of matching share requirements or excess cash
drawdowns.
Nor has DCCAC offered any explanation whatsoever for failing
to provide
documentation upon request, although it is required both to
maintain the
documentation and to "assure timely and appropriate
resolution of audit
findings." 45 C.F.R. . 74.61. 11/ DCCAC should
thus have superior
access to documents necessary to discredit the audit
findings if they were
incorrect and should be required to take steps to
respond to questions raised
by audit findings. See Indiana Dept. of
Public Welfare, DAB No. 970 at
6-7 (1988)(Grantee has burden of showing
audit findings are wrong where it
should possess documentation.). In
such circumstances, nothing would be
gained, and time and money would be
wasted, by remanding this case for
reissuance of the disallowances based
on additional audits or reviews,
because of audit flaws which were
either technical, remediable by resort to
information available to the
federal agency independently, or caused by
DCCAC's own failure to keep
adequate records or cooperate with its
auditors.
3. DCCAC offered no documentation to substantiate the questioned costs.
DCCAC has never alleged, even when expressly asked, that it has
auditable
records to document its entitlement to the questioned amounts.
Tr. at
25. DCCAC has been offered ample and repeated opportunity
to
demonstrate any error in the audit findings and has failed or refused
to
do so. DCCAC never sought to reserve a later opportunity to
provide
documentation, should its attack on the audit reports fail.
During the
telephone conference, when ACF's counsel suggested that DCCAC has
never
submitted any documentation that would allow ACF to reverse
the
disallowances, DCCAC's counsel responded: "Right, because we're
arguing
before the Board that you have no right to take the disallowances in
the
first place, that's obviously a decision we made about how to proceed
in
this case." Tr. at 31.
Any documentation that DCCAC had to demonstrate that the questioned
costs
are supportable or that the audit findings are erroneous should
have been
presented to the Board. We will not permit an appellant to
use a
"procedural ploy" to justify refusing to respond when an issue has
been
raised with sufficient clarity. West Virginia Dept. of Human
Services,
DAB No. 1107 at 6-8 (1989), appeal pending sub nom., West
Virginia Department
of Human Services v. Sullivan, Civ. Action No.
2:90-0593 (S.D.W.Va., June 25,
1990). If any documentation existed but
counsel chose not to submit it,
we have previously held that a party has
the "responsibility to work with its
counsel in reviewing what the
counsel submitted to the Board and in ensuring
that the counsel's
submissions were accurate and complete." West
Central Wisconsin
Community Action Agency, Inc., Request for Reconsideration
of DAB No.
861 at 2 (1987). The Board is therefore entitled to infer
that no
documentation exists that would adequately support the items
questioned
by DCCAC's auditors.
This conclusion is buttressed by a review of the audit reports, which
are
replete with comments on the inadequacy of DCCAC's record-keeping.
For audit
no. 2, for example, the auditors found "two sets of records,
both of which
were incomplete" and were unable to use some computerized
data because the
files were inaccessible and back-up files could not be
found. Audit no.
2 at 21. Similarly, records for audit no. 3 were "not
accessible due to
file damage, and DCCAC personnel were not familiar
with the computer
program." Audit no. 3 at 19. For both years, the
auditors found
that DCCAC's "financial management system did not provide
accurate and
current information of financial grant activities." Audit
no. 2 at 21;
Audit no. 3 at 19.
The closest DCCAC came to an explanation was the admission that it
"had
been undergoing a great deal of upheaval organizationally. Because
of
these problems, record-keeping was not always optimal,
and
reconstructing the past, i.e. prior to 1989, has often-times
been
difficult." DCCAC Response to ACF Rejoinder at 1. However,
in its
notice of appeal, DCCAC promised to demonstrate "that all costs
were
reasonable, necessary, and otherwise allowable." At 1. DCCAC
thus
understood what it needed to prove and simply did not fulfill
its
promise to do so.
4. The disallowance amounts for inadequately documented matching
shares
were apparently calculated wrongly.
As noted earlier, two of the disallowances reflected an apparent
error
regarding non-federal matching share. Audit nos. 2 and 3
questioned
DCCAC's documentation to support its non-federal matching
share. The
OAOIG recommended financial adjustments for questioned
non-federal share
amounts, if ACF determined those amounts to be
unallowable. ACF then
simply disallowed those amounts ($265,807 from
audit no. 2 and $255,826
from audit no. 3). While ACF was justified in
relying on the audit
findings and the OAOIG's recommendations regarding
documentation of the
matching share amounts, it appears that further analysis
by ACF would be
necessary in order to calculate the correct amount of the
disallowance.
There are a number of payment limits which affect the amount of
federal
cash ultimately recovered by a grantee. The amount of federal
cash
which a grantee is entitled to be paid is limited by the amount
of
federal funds awarded (or the federal share of the approved budget),
by
the amount of allowable costs incurred, and by non-federal share
or
match requirements. In light of these limits, it appears that
DCCAC
could recover for any budget period, the lesser of (1) the amount
of
federal funds awarded (including any unobligated balance carried
over
from prior budget periods), or (2) the federal share (typically for
Head
Start, 80 percent) of the sum of audited allowable program
expenditures
and third party in kind contributions. 12/ Accordingly,
ACF should
determine the allowable federal share of expenditures, up to the
total
authorized federal funds for each budget period, by reference to
the
non-federal share amounts which ACF accepted as properly
documented.
Since the record does not show that the necessary calculations
were
performed by ACF, we remand the disallowances for audit nos. 2 and 3
for
recalculation.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, we find that the audit findings and
OAOIG's
attendant recommendations were adequate bases for ACF's
disallowances.
This record does not support a conclusion that the flaws
in the audit reports
undercut the auditors' findings concerning the
questioned cost items.
Since DCCAC provided no information or
affirmative documentation with regard
to the questioned items, the
disallowances must be upheld in full subject
only to an adjustment of
the amounts disallowed based on audit nos. 2 and 3
to reflect the
recalculation of the non-federal share adjustment. If
DCCAC disputes
the recalculation of the disallowed.amounts for audit nos. 2
and 3, it
may appeal to the Board on this limited issue within 30 days
of
receiving ACF's determination.
Norval D. (John) Settle
Donald F. Garrett
Cecilia Sparks Ford Presiding Board Member
1. This is the current name for the grantor agency for Head
Start,
which had been the Office of Human Development Services until
recent
organizational changes. We use the current designation
throughout,
although the former name was in effect at the time of the
disallowance.
2. For easy identification we have assigned a number to each
audit.
The corresponding audit control numbers and dates, the dates on
which
the audit years ended, and disallowance amounts are set forth
below:
Id. No. Audit No. Audit Date Audit Year Amount
1 A-06-89-07034 8/5/87 2/28/87 $4,424
2 A-06-89-05199 11/7/88 9/30/87 $265,807
3 A-06-89-08063
12/29/88 9/30/88 $823,368
Total:
$1,093,599
The audits do not all directly correspond with Head Start
budget
periods. Audit no. 1 covers program year 21 from March 1, 1986
to
February 28, 1987. However, audit no. 2 covers seven months of
program
year 22 from March 1, 1987 to September 30, 1987. Audit no. 3
covers
the remainder of program year 22 from October 1, 1987 to February
29,
1988, as well as program year 23 from March 1, 1988 to August 31,
1988,
which appears to be when DCCAC's Head Start grant ended.
3. Comptroller General of the United States, Government
Auditing
Standards (rev. 1988) ("Yellow Book").
4. DCCAC did not provide the Board with its response to the
OAOIG's
recommendations relating to audit no. 3. In fact, DCCAC failed
to
produce the audit reports themselves, despite a specific request
for
them in the Board's acknowledgment letter, until after the request
was
renewed during the oral argument held by telephone
conference.
Transcript (Tr.) of May 2, 1991 Telephone Conference at 18-20,
73.
5. In general, Head Start grantees may not receive more than eighty
per
cent of their costs from federal funds. The remainder, often
called
matching share, must be made up through non-federal sources,
including
in-kind contributions. 42 U.S.C. . 9835(b); 45 C.F.R.
1301.20.
6. DCCAC objected to the lack of documentation in the audit work
papers
to support this estimate of fair market value. However, DCCAC
did not
submit an independent appraisal or other documentation to justify
a
higher value. (The work papers submitted contain a statement from
the
school district contributing the space but no current appraisal.)
7. The requirements for valuation and documentation of matching
share
donations are found at 45 C.F.R. Part 74, Subpart G.
8. We note that for audit nos. 2 and 3 OAOIG referred to the
audit
requirements of Office of Management and Budget (OMB) Circular
A-128.
OMB Circular A-128 applies to state and local government
grantees. OMB
Circular A-110 sets the audit requirements for private
non-profit
organizations like DCCAC. See 45 C.F.R. 74.62. The
parties
acknowledged this, but did not address the significance, if any,
to
OAOIG's conclusions. See Tr. at 28-29.
9. DCCAC withdrew its initial challenge to this calculation of
the
amount of the disallowance resulting from audit no. 3, when ACF
provided
copies of DCCAC's Financial Assistance Awards for budget period
March 1,
1987 through February 29, 1988. DCCAC's Response to ACF's
Rejoinder at
1; ACF's Rejoinder, Ex. A. DCCAC acknowledged that the
cash drawdown
amount used in the disallowance was correct. It is thus
hard to see how
any error in the SFSFA would be material, since ACF had
access to its
own records to verify this information. Furthermore, as
to matching
shares, as discussed infra, ACF apparently did not perform
any
calculations using the SFSFA figures since it simply disallowed
the
total Head Start non-federal share amounts questioned by the
auditors.
10. DCCAC submitted materials represented to be the complete
work
papers of the auditors in audit nos. 2 and 3 and argued that they
were
inadequate to support the findings. DCCAC Reply Br., Ex. 4.
DCCAC
counsel's assertion that no other work papers existed, either at
present
or originally, was not supported by affidavits or any other
direct
evidence. The record before us does not establish that the
working
papers, if complete, were inadequate. Since the findings
centered on
the unavailability of required items of documentation from the
grantee,
it is not clear in what way such a void should have been reflected
in
the work papers. For financial audits, the Yellow Book requires that
a
"record of the auditors' work be retained in the form of
working
papers," which should contain "sufficient information so
that,
supplementary oral explanations are not required." At 4-6.
DCCAC
suggested that the work papers should have spelled out the
auditors'
efforts to obtain documentation and rejected the inference that
the
meagerness of the work papers simply reflected the gaps in
DCCAC's
records. However, the Yellow Book does not specify how the work
papers
should reflect an absence of documentation. In any case, we need
reach
no conclusion about the completeness or adequacy of these materials,
in
light of our disposition of this matter, since we find that DCCAC
was
obliged to come forward with affirmative documentation of its use
of
federal funds once specific questions were raised with particularity.
11. ACF relied on this regulation to suggest that DCCAC's challenge
to
the reliability of the audits should be rejected as untimely.
However,
a grantee is not foreclosed from challenging audit findings before
us
simply because its objections were not raised during the
audit
resolution process. Board review is not limited to the audit
record.
See New York State Dept. of Social Services, DAB No. 1063 at
10
(1989)(Alleged mistakes in the audit process are not a basis
for
reversing a disallowance where findings are not shown to be
erroneous
and grantee had ample opportunity to present complete information
to the
Board.). Thus DCCAC could have offered evidence before the Board
that
the audit findings were unreliable because they were wrong, even
though
DCCAC had made no effort to do so during the audit resolution
process.
However, such evidence must consist of source documentation
supporting
DCCAC's use of federal funds, not simply a collateral attack on
the
audit process or reports.
12. The methodology for these calculations is explained in the
Grants
Administration Manual of the Department of Health and Human
Services,
Chapter 1-401 (September 30, 1981 and November 30, 1981). See
also
Inter-Tribal Council of California, Inc., DAB No. 265 at
2-4