State Single Audit

OMB Uniform Guidance Information

Pre-Award Risk Assessment

One aspect of the Uniform Guidance (2 CFR Part 200 Uniform Administrative Requirements, Cost Principles and Audit Requirements for Federal Awards) is the addition of new language that requires both federal agencies and pass-through entities (e.g. the State of Alaska) to review the merit and risk associated with a potential grant recipient prior to making an award. In evaluating the risks posed by the grant applicants, the awarding agency may use a risk-based approach and consider any items, such as:

1. Financial stability
2. Quality of management systems
3. History of performance
4. Reports and findings from audits

Effective Dates

The Uniform Guidance standards mentioned on this page will be effective for awards or increments of awards issued on or after December 26, 2014.

Sample Pre-Award Risk Assessment Tools

Numerous risk assessment tools have been developed by a variety of federal, state and local governments. To provide inspiration in developing or strengthening your agency’s assessment tool, we selected several examples from each of the above groups. Additional examples can be obtained through a quick search on the Internet. Ensure that whatever tool your agency selects or customizes to meet its needs, also complies with the requirements of the Uniform Guidance by the December 26, 2014 implementation date.

• Sample assessment tools from the Federal government
  • US DOI - Pre-Award Financial Risk Assessment
  • US DOJ – Acct System & Financial Capabilities Questionnaire
  • US DOJ – Risk Assessment Protocols
  • US FWS – Financial Assistance Recipient Risk Assessment
  • US HUD – Risk Analysis for Grants Program Checklist
• Sample assessments from other organizations
  • AGA - Risk Assessment Monitoring Tool
  • Marquette University - Risk Assessment Questionnaire
  • Generic Risk Assessment Tool Template
• Sample assessment tools from other states
  • State of ME - Risk Assessment Tool [XLSX]
  • State of WA - CSBG Program Risk Assessment
  • State of WA - OCJ Programs 2013 Risk Assessment
• Sample assessment tools from the State of Alaska
  • AHFC - Risk Assessment Worksheet
  • DCCED - Pre-Award Risk Assessment
  • DMVA – HLS Grant Program Application Evaluation

Additional Award Conditions

When an applicant has a history of failure to comply with the general or specific terms and conditions of a federal award, fails to meet expected performance goals, or is not otherwise responsible, the State may impose additional specific award conditions, such as:

• Requiring payments as reimbursements rather than advance payments;
• Withholding authority to proceed to the next phase until receipt of evidence of acceptable performance within a given period of performance;
• Requiring additional, more detailed financial reports
• Requiring additional project monitoring;
• Requiring the grantee to obtain technical or management assistance;
• Establishing additional prior approvals.

Additional guidance on the additional conditions can be found at 2 CFR Part 200, §200.206.

Remedies for Noncompliance

If a grant recipient fails to comply with the terms and conditions of a federal award, the State may take one or more of the following actions:

1. Temporarily withhold cash payments pending correction of the deficiency.
2. Disallow all or part of the cost of the activity or action not in compliance.
3. Wholly or partly suspend or terminate the federal award.
4. Recommend suspension or debarment proceedings be initiated by the federal awarding agency.
5. Withhold further federal awards for the project or program.
6. Take other remedies that may be legally available.

For additional information on remedies for noncompliance, see 2 CFR Part 200, §200.339.