4_-_J.3__Program-Specific_Audit_RFTOP.docx

Sample RFTOP 3 Request for Task order Proposal Program-Specific Audit Services for Angola Performance Work Statement

Introduction/Background:

The President’s Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief (PEPFAR) has led global efforts to deliver care, treatment, prevention and support services to those infected and affected by HIV in resource-poor settings. CDC/CGH/DGHA works with grantees in Angola, including government entities as well as non-governmental organizations to implement the PEPFAR activities. CDC must exercise proper fiduciary oversight of its grantees. Sometimes additional resources are required to facilitate internal controls and oversight for grants and cooperative agreements in the international arena.

References:

1.

2. www.PEPFAR.gov

3. http://www.pepfar.gov/smart/index.htm

4.

5. US Department of Health and Human Services contact for obtaining program-specific audit guidance (PEPFAR programs):

US Department of Health and Human Services Office of the Inspector General Office of Audit Services 202-619-3155

Scope and Requirements:

The contractor shall provide necessary supplies, expertise and staff to fulfill the requirements of an A-133 program specific audit for each of the grantees listed below.

Tasks:

The Office of the Global AIDS Coordinator (OGAC) and CDC’s Center for Global Health, Division of Global HIV/AIDS (CDC/CGH/DGHA) management have requested program-specific audits to be conducted on Angola Ministry of Health grantee with PEPFAR-funded cooperative agreements in the CDC/Angola portfolio. These grantees have been audited previously.

Most of CDC’s foreign grantees have adhered to the terms and conditions of the cooperative agreement, have obtained audits, and have subsequently agreed to corrective action if audit findings demanded corrective action. However, there is concern that the MOH supported by CDC/Angola may not have fully adhered to this requirement. The following grantees were awarded cooperative agreements which are to be audited in the Republic of Angola under PEPFAR.

District Health Office of Angola Angola Prisons Services National Medical Stores Angola University School of Medicine Virus Research Institute of Angola Angola Ministry of Health Angola University School of Public Health

CDC’s ongoing oversight of the cooperative agreements listed above identified several concerns that require further review. Reports of weak procurement procedures, internal control system, and compliance with cost principles have been received. Additionally, an assessment is needed to determine whether CDC-Angola cooperative agreement staff members are in compliance with the substantial involvement requirement inherent in all CDC cooperative agreements. Each of the aforementioned Cooperative Agreements requires substantial involvement as referenced in the AAGAM Chapter 2.02.102.

In light of these concerns, the purpose of this contract is to obtain program-specific audits (per guidance found in OMB Circular A-133) for these entities and their respective CDC Cooperative Agreement for the three budget periods: 2011, 2012 and 2013.

The resulting program-specific audit for each grantee should:

1. Conform to Generally Accepted Government Auditing Standards (GAGAS).

2. Supply information to provide assurances that PEPFAR funding is being used exclusively to support the purposes of the grant and is not being misapplied, misused, or unaccounted for.

3. Report on the grantee’s:

4. Provide additional, relevant information pertaining to grantee performance.

Program-specific audit conclusions and recommendations shall logically flow from all of these elements and provide an assessment of the audit findings and their implications, including recommendations for corrective actions.

Draft reports are to be provided to the CDC COR for review and comment based on the deliverables schedule shown below under Deliverables. After receipt of CDC comments, final versions of each report will be due as specified in the deliverables list.

Before completing the draft audits, the Contractor shall consult with the Cooperative Agreement Management staff in Angola for information on grantee performance before submitting a report to the CDC Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR). Significant findings shall be disclosed in the draft reports and discussed in the staff consultations.

The entire scope of work would be completed within a twelve-month period. This includes preparation, work in the selected countries and regions, report writing and finalization. The timeline being anticipated is October 1, 2014 through September 30, 2015.

Deliverables:

Draft and final reports shall be submitted to the Contracting Officer Representative (COR) upon completion, according to the schedule below.

Delivery or Performance-period Requirements:

The period of performance is twelve (12) months from the date of award.

Place of Performance:

Luanda, Angola

Performance-Based Matrix:

Surveillance "Incentives" Positive or Negative

Submission of the following CDC Angola-

· Draft Program Specific Audit Report

· Final Program Specific Audit Report with recommendations for corrective actions

Negative: Performance evaluations will include any services that failed to meet acceptable standards and will be used in determining awards for future task orders for similar services.

FAR 52.246-4 – Inspection of Services – Fixed Price image2.emf

Master Scorecard 4.30.2013.xlsx Management & Leadership

<Country> Management & Leadership Scorecard

LANE DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN STANDARD Exceeds Standards Meets Standards Needs Improvement Needs Urgent Remediation Initial Score Comments/Observations Recommendations POC Due Date Best Practices HQ Action Items Cross-Cutting BSO Issues Multi-Country Issues Update #1-Date Update #1-Recommended Status Update #1 - Update

4 3 2 1

Yes/No Comments Yes/No Comments Yes/No Comments Yes/No Comments

Management & Leadership Management & Leadership 1.1 Only direct hires are performing inherently governmental duties (tool: see checklist) N/A The instruments being used indicate that only direct-hires are performing inherently governmental duties The instruments being used suggest that there are issues of clarity surrounding inherently governmental functions, yet there are no clear evidence of violations. The instruments being utilized show clear evidence that non-direct-hires are performing inherently governmental functions.

Management & Leadership 1.2 CDC vacancies for LE staff for the past year have been filled within 6 months of the positions being posted (tool: Embassy HR database; if no vacancies, mark N/A for both the score and comment section) 100% of the vacancies reviewed were filled within 6 months of the positions being posted 99% – 85% of the vacancies reviewed were filled within 6 months of the positions being posted 84% – 50% of the vacancies reviewed were filled within 6 months of the positions being posted Less than 50% of the vacancies reviewed were filled within 6 months of the positions being posted

Management & Leadership 1.3 Correct hiring mechanism and authorities are used to hire staff (tool: WEBPASS +org chart – review before CMAS) 100% of the records reviewed demonstrate that correct hiring mechanisms and authorities are used 99% – 85% of the records reviewed demonstrate that correct hiring mechanisms and authorities are used 84% – 50% of the records reviewed demonstrate that correct hiring mechanisms and authorities are used Less than 50% of the records reviewed demonstrate that correct hiring mechanisms and authorities are used

Management & Leadership 1.4 LE Staff are in leadership positions or are being groomed such (tool: review of organogram, Direct Hire or exception grade 13 appointments, Chair or co-Chair of Interagency Technical Workgroup, evidence of career ladder) All four criteria are being met. Three of the four criteria are being met. Two of the four criteria are being met. Less than two of the criteria are being met.

Management & Leadership 1.5 Staff perception that LE staff are in leadership roles or are being groomed for such (tool: Survey Monkey; for countries with staff less than 20 use the "Small Response Count Criteria") Greater than 95% of respondents provided scores of “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” Greater than or equal to 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Less than 70% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree"

Management & Leadership 1.6 Organizational Management and Leadership Scale; staff agreement about the quality of the country program operations in the following areas: (tool: Survey Monkey) N/A

Management & Leadership 1.6 a. Strategy (Q 3.1, 3.2) Greater than 95% of respondents provided scores of “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” Greater than or equal to 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Less than 70% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree"

Management & Leadership 1.6 b. Task (Q 3.10, 3.11, 3.17) Greater than or equal to 95% of respondents provided scores of “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” Greater than or equal to 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Less than 70% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree"

Management & Leadership 1.6 c. Structure (Q 3.3, 3.4, 3.5) Greater than or equal to 95% of respondents provided scores of “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” Greater than or equal to 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Less than 70% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree"

Management & Leadership 1.6 d. People (Q 3.6, 3.8, 3.9) Greater than or equal to 95% of respondents provided scores of “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” Greater than or equal to 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Less than 70% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree"

Management & Leadership 1.6 e. Rewards (Q 3.12, 3.13) Greater than or equal to 95% of respondents provided scores of “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” Greater than or equal to 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Less than 70% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree"

Management & Leadership 1.6 f. Processes (Q 3.7, 3.15, 3.16) Greater than or equal to 95% of respondents provided scores of “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” Greater than or equal to 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Less than 70% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree"

Management & Leadership 1.6 g. Leadership (Q 3.23, 3.24, 3.25) Greater than or equal to 95% of respondents provided scores of “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” Greater than or equal to 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Less than 70% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree"

USG Relationships 2.1 CDC staff perception that CDC maintains good relations with the Embassy (tool: Survey Monkey) Greater than or equal to 95% of respondents provided scores of “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” Greater than or equal to 80% and less than 95% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Less than 70% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree"

USG Relationships 2.2 CDC maintains good relations with the Embassy (tool: Country Manager interviews with Ambassador, DCM, PEPFAR Coordinator, USAID Mission Director) All report that CDC maintains good relations with the Embassy. Most (more than 50%) report that CDC maintains good relations with the Embassy Some (50% or less but more than none) report that CDC maintains good relations with the Embassy. None report that CDC maintains good relations with the Embassy

USG Relationships 2.3 CDC staff perception that CDC maintains good relations with other USG agencies (tool: Survey Monkey) Greater than or equal to 95% of respondents provided scores of “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” Greater than or equal to 80% and less than 95% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Less than 70% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree"

USG Relationships 2.4 CDC maintains good relations with other USG agencies (tool: Country Manager interviews with Ambassador, DCM, PEPFAR Coordinator, and USG PEPFAR partners) All report that CDC maintains good relations with other USG agencies. Most (more than 50%) report that CDC maintains good relations with the Embassy Some (50% or less but more than none) report that CDC maintains good relations with the Embassy. None report that CDC maintains good relations with other USG agencies

Time & Attendance & Personnel Files 3.1 Time and attendance for LE staff is compliant with the FAM and CDC regulations (tool: T & A tool) All of the records reviewed are compliant. The majority (more than 50% but less than 100%) are compliant. Some (50% or less but more than none) of the records reviewed are compliant. None of the records reviewed are compliant.

Time & Attendance & Personnel Files 3.2 Time and attendance for USDH FTEs is compliant with CDC regulations (tool: USDH T & A Checklist– pre-CMAS review & confirmed on site if problems) All of the records reviewed are compliant. The majority (more than 50% but less than 100%) are compliant. Some (50% or less but more than none) of the records reviewed are compliant. None of the records reviewed are compliant.

Training, Career Development & Job Satisfaction 4.1 New direct hire staff (in country less than 1 year) have completed mandatory pre-deployment training or have a signed plan to complete the training within the first six months of their deployment (tool: Workforce Team records reviewed pre-CMAS & confirmed in country; “new” for current year= hired after April 30, 2012 when requirement effective) N/A 100% of the direct hires (in country less than 1 year) completed mandatory pre-deployment training or have a signed plan to complete the training within the first six months of their deployment Less than 100% of the direct hires (in country less than one year) have completed all mandatory predeployment training or have a signed training plan to do so within six months. However, incomplete progress against training plan is the result of limited training availability outside the employees' control. Less than 100% of the direct hires (in country less than 1 year) completed mandatory pre-deployment training or have a signed plan to complete the training within the first six months of their deployment

Training, Career Development & Job Satisfaction 4.2 Staff indicate that there is sufficient training to improve current job performance (tool: Survey Monkey) Greater than 95% of respondents provided scores of “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” Greater than or equal to 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Less than 70% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree"

Training, Career Development & Job Satisfaction 4.3 Staff indicate that there is sufficient communication and training to update them on new policies and procedures (tool: Survey Monkey) Greater than 95% of respondents provided scores of “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” Greater than or equal to 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Less than 70% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree"

Training, Career Development & Job Satisfaction 4.4 Staff indicate that the CDC office is a good place to work * (tool: Survey Monkey) Greater than 95% of respondents provided scores of “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” Greater than or equal to 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Less than 70% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree"

Safety and Security 5.1 There is a current emergency notification system in place for the CDC office which includes all CDC staff and contractors. Last time exercised: __(insert date)____ (Review of CDC notification system.) N/A An emergency notification system which includes 100% of CDC staff and contractors is in place and has been exercised in the past year. N/A An emergency notification system which includes 100% of CDC staff and contractors is not in place or has not been exercised in the past year.

Safety and Security 5.2 A basic office safety assessment of non-Embassy CDC facilities has been conducted by the Post Occupational Safety and Health Officer (POSHO) or Embassy representative within the past two years: _____insert date_____(Deputy Director interview and review of findings & follow up) N/A A basic office safety assessment has been conducted by the POSHO or Embassy representative within the past two years A basic office safety assessment has been requested by CDC but is pending due to Department of State's availability to support. A basic office safety assessment has NOT been conducted by the POSHO or Embassy representative within the past two years

Other 6.1 In country staff indicates that they know where to go for EEO, discrimination or workplace protection questions or concerns. (tool: Survey Monkey) Greater than 95% of respondents provided scores of “Agree” or “Strongly Agree” Greater than or equal to 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Greater than or equal to 70% and less than 80% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree" Less than 70% of respondents provided scores of “Agree”, “Strongly Agree”, or "Neither Agree nor Disagree"

Other 6.2 All employees on staff for over 30 days have been supplied and are using encrypted thumb drives, and only encrypted thumb drives are being used on USG computers. N/A All staff have been supplied and are using encrypted thumb drives on USG computers. Thumb drives have been appropriated ordered by office but order not received or incomplete. All staff have been supplied but are not consistently using encrypted thumb drives on USG computers.

Number of (Country) Personnel

DGHA Non-DGHA TOTAL Staff 1:1 Interviews completed (% of DGHA Staff) Survey Monkey Responses (% of DGHA staff)

Direct Hire

Technical LE Staff

Non Technical LE Staff

Other

TOTAL

* Small Response Count Criteria yellow (1) if: red (0) if:

0-5 two 4s (or one 4 and one 5) three or more 4/5s two or more 5s

6-10 three 4s (or up to one 4 and two 5s) four or more 4/5s three or more 5s

11-20 four 4s (or up to one 4 and three 5s) five or more 4/5s four or more 5s

Internal Controls & Partner Mgt

<Country> Internal Controls & Partner Management Scorecard

LANE DOMAIN SUB-DOMAIN STANDARD Exceeds Standards Meets Standards Needs Improvement Needs Urgent Remediation Initial Score Comments/Observations Recommendations POC Due Date Best Practices HQ Action Items Cross-Cutting BSO Issues Multi-Country Issues Update #1-Date Update #1-Recommended Status Update #1 - Update

4 3 2 1

Yes/No Comments Yes/No Comments Yes/No Comments Yes/No Comments

Internal Controls & Partner Management Program Budget 1.1. There is a system in place for tracking financial transactions that are in process but not yet in the accounting system (Pre-commitment and pre-obligation). N/A

Program Budget 1.1. a. Projections for CoAgs and contracts are tracked N/A The full COP/ROP is projected in the financial tracking system. CoAg and contract funding actions are entered into the financial system as they arise. No system in place for tracking pre-commitment/pre-obligation financial transactions

Program Budget 1.1. b. Track HQ and post transactions System also tracks in process travel and/or credit card purchases. Post and HQ transactions are tracked for the full budget picture. Post transactions are tracked but tracking of HQ transactions is solely reliant on IRIS reports No system in place for tracking pre-commitment/pre-obligation financial transactions

Program Budget 1.1. c. Pre-commitment and pre-obligation incorporated into or housed within the main budget report so available funds are accurate N/A Pre-commitment/pre-obligation financial transactions are tracked within the main budget report and kept up to date. Pre-commitment/pre-obligation financial transactions are tracked separately from main budget report requiring reconciliation to determine available funds. No system in place for tracking pre-commitment/pre-obligation financial transactions

Program Budget 1.2. In-country generated budget reports include obligation data from IRIS tracked at the object class level. In-country generated budget reports include obligations and expenditures tracked at the object class level Additionally, information at the document level is incorporated into the budget reports In-country generated budget reports include actual obligations and expenditures for HQ transactions by object class In-country generated budget reports include IRIS data but not at the object class level There is not a system in place for incorporating IRIS data into in-country generated budget reports

Program Budget 1.3. In-country generated budget reports include obligation data from COAST tracked at the object class level. In-country generated budget reports include obligations and expenditures tracked at the object class level Additionally, information at the document level is incorporated into the budget reports In-country generated budget reports include actual obligations for post transactions by object class In-country generated budget reports include COAST data but not at the object class level There is not a system in place for incorporating COAST data into in-country generated budget reports

Program Budget 1.4. Reconciled budget reports are produced on a monthly basis and Budget Staff keeps Deputy and/or Country Director informed of Budget issues. Reconciled budget reports are produced on a monthly basis or more frequently. Budget Staff, Deputy and/or Country Director review the report together. Reconciled budget reports are produced more frequently than monthly. Reconciled budget reports are produced on a monthly basis or more frequently. Budget Staff keeps Deputy and/or Country Director informed of major budget issues Reconciled budget reports are produced and are available to the Deputy and/or Country Director upon request Reconciled budget reports are produced less frequently than monthly or not generated at all

Program Budget 1.5. The validity of all obligations are verified during budget reconciliation and when errors are identified the correct POC is notified. The validity of all obligations are verified during budget reconciliation and when errors are identified the correct POC is notified. Budget staff document that they continually follow up with the correct POC until the error is corrected. The validity of all obligations are verified during budget reconciliation and when errors are identified the correct POC is notified The validity of large obligations are verified (CoAgs, Contracts) during budget reconciliation and when errors are identified the correct POC is notified The validity of obligations are not verified during budget reconciliation

Program Budget 1.6. Self-generated budget reports are accessible for the current and previous fiscal year (only considering the presence of the reports, not quality) Budget reports are accessible for the current and multiple prior fiscal years Budget reports are accessible for the current and previous fiscal year Budget report is only accessible for the current fiscal year No budget reports are accessible

Program Budget 1.7. COAST data is obtained from the Embassy on a bi-weekly (twice a month) basis in accordance to ICASS standards An employee has access to COAST and can obtain data at any time COAST data is obtained from the Embassy on a bi-weekly basis COAST data is obtained from the Embassy less frequent than the bi-weekly standard or data has to be requested COAST data is not obtained from the Embassy

Program Budget 1.8. IRIS data is obtained from FMO Atlanta on a monthly basis An employee has access to IRIS and can obtain data at any time IRIS data is obtained from FMO Atlanta on a monthly basis IRIS data is obtained from FMO Atlanta less frequent than the monthly standard or has to be requested IRIS data is not obtained from FMO Atlanta

Program Budget 1.9. There is a process in place for requesting and filing cables. This process, at a minimum, must: N/A

Program Budget 1.9.a. identify the correct HQ POCs N/A The correct HQ POCs are identified N/A The correct HQ POCs are not identified

Program Budget 1.9.b. copy the Deputy Director on requests N/A The Deputy is copied on all cable requests The Deputy is copied on significant cable requests but not all The Deputy is not copied on cable requests

Program Budget 1.9.c. store comeback cables for the current fiscal year Comeback cables from more than the current fiscal year are stored and available for review Comeback cables from the current fiscal year are stored and available for review Only the most recent comeback cables are stored and are available for review Comeback cables are not stored and are not available for review

Program Budget 1.9.d. there is a written SOP in place for the in-country processing of cable requests N/A There is a written SOP in place with sufficient detail to process a cable without further guidance There is a written SOP in place but it is not detailed enough to process a cable without further guidance There is no written SOP in place for the in-country processing of cable requests

Program Budget 1.10 There is a process in place for managing unliquidated obligations (ULOs). This process, at a minimum, must: N/A

Program Budget 1.10.a. Check the validity of a ULO with Project Officer, COTR, or traveler N/A An email is sent or an in-person inquiry is performed with the Project Officer, COR or Traveler to check the validity of the ULO. If no response is received immediately a follow up inquiry is performed. An email is sent to the Project Officer, COR or Traveler to check the validity of the ULO. ULOs are not managed

Program Budget 1.10.b. Communicate with HQ by the stated deadline on HQ ULOs N/A Adequate communication is submitted to HQ by the deadline. Communication is late or communication is sent to HQ by the stated deadline but the information is inadequate. ULOs are not managed

Program Budget 1.10.c. Communicate with Embassy to de-obligate necessary post ULOs N/A Adequate communication is submitted to the Embassy by the deadline. Communication is sent to the Embassy by the stated deadline but the information is inadequate or the communication is late. ULOs are not managed

Program Budget 1.10.d. Post unliquidated obligations are reviewed on a monthly basis Post ULOs are reviewed more frequently than monthly Post ULOs are reviewed on a monthly basis Post ULOs are reviewed less frequently than monthly ULOs are not managed

Program Budget 1.10.e. HQ unliquidated obligations (ULOs) are reviewed on a quarterly basis HQ ULOs are reviewed more frequently than quarterly HQ ULOs are reviewed on a quarterly basis HQ ULOs are reviewed less frequently than quarterly ULOs are not managed

Program Budget 1.11 There is a process in place for preparing Cost of Doing Business (M&O) figures. This process, at a minimum, must: N/A

Program Budget 1.11.a. Provide projections for a 12 month period N/A The M&O budget calculations provide projections for the 12 month COP funding period. The M&O budget calculations provide projections for a period of time other than the 12 month COP funding period (i.e. federal fiscal year) There are no M&O budget calculations

Program Budget 1.11.b. provide projections by object class code N/A The M&O budget calculations are provided by object class code. Some object classes are utilized but not all. Projections are not provided by object class code.

Program Budget 1.11.c. list OC 25 projection for ICASS, OBO, and major contracts separately N/A OC 25 projections are listed separately for ICASS, OBO and major contracts Major contracts are listed separately but ICASS and OBO are lumped together All OC 25 projections are lumped together

Program Budget 1.11.d. provide evidence of comparison to historical spending levels The M&O budget calculations provide a comparison to multiple previous year's M&O budget and spending levels with full detail for each time period The M&O budget calculations provide a comparison to the previous year's M&O budget calculations with full detail The M&O budget calculations provide a comparison to the previous year's M&O budget calculations but without adequate detail There is no evidence of comparison to historical spending levels.

Program Budget 1.11.e. account for resources previously allocated (carryover and current year funding) N/A Previously allocated resources documented and COP request made accordingly Previously allocated resources are documented but current request is not reduced accordingly Previously allocated resources are not considered

Program Budget 1.11.f. use at least one of the following techniques: inflation of previous fiscal year or detailed projections of future requirements There is clear evidence that one of the listed techniques was utilized when formulating the M&O budget: inflation of previous fiscal year or detailed projections of future requirements. Supporting documentation is presented; and trend analysis for previous &/or future years is available There is clear evidence that one of the following techniques was utilized when formulating the M&O budget: inflation of previous fiscal year or detailed projections of future requirements There is some evidence that inflation was taken into consideration when formulating the M&O budget but the technique is not clear There is no evidence that inflation was taken into consideration when formulating the M&O budget

Program Budget 1.12 There is a process in place for reconciling COP activities to actual obligations. This process, at a minimum, must: N/A

Program Budget 1.12.a. maintain a spreadsheet (or other documentation) with all outstanding COP activities to be funded All COP years are documented with full funding history of the program A spreadsheet (or other documentation) is maintained with all outstanding COP activities to be funded A spreadsheet (or other documentation) is maintained but not all outstanding COP activities are included There is no process in place for reconciling COP activities

Program Budget 1.12.b. reconcile activities on a monthly basis Reconciliation occurs more frequently than monthly Reconciliation occurs on a monthly basis Reconciliation occurs but less frequently than monthly There is no process in place for reconciling COP activities

Program Budget 1.13 Budget Staff utilize First In/First Out (FIFO) to determine the order in which funds are obligated. FIFO should occur in the following order: BASE (to be treated as a one year appropriation), GHAI, GHCS, then GHP N/A Funds are utilized in the correct order. GHAI, GHCS, and GHP are utilized in the correct order but obligating BASE funds is not made a priority Funds are not utilized in the correct order

Program Budget 1.14 Budget staff have completed the following required trainings: N/A

Program Budget 1.14.a. Appropriations Law (renew every 3 years) In addition to all budget staff, other staff members are up to date on Appropriations Law training All Budget Staff, including the Deputy and Country Director, are up to date on Appropriations Law training Some, but not all, Budget Staff are up to date on Appropriations Law training Appropriations Law training has not been completed by the Budget Staff

Program Budget 1.14.b. IRIS for Deputy Directors N/A Deputy has completed IRIS training At least one budget staff has completed IRIS training Neither the Deputy nor a budget staff member has completed IRIS training

Facilities and Property Management 2.1 There is a process in place for property management in which: N/A

Facilities and Property Management 2.1.a. 100% of sample is accounted for (visually inspected or documented) N/A 100% of sample is accounted for (visually inspected or documented) less than 100% of sample is accounted for and remaining is in-process to be accounted for less than 100% of sample is accounted for

Facilities and Property Management 2.1.b. 100% of randomly selected sensitive items are barcoded N/A 100% of sample is barcoded if sensitive and accountable N/A less than 100% of sample is barcoded if sensitive and accountable

Facilities and Property Management 2.1.c. 100% of sample that is accountable is in PMIS N/A 100% of sample that is accountable is in PMIS N/A less than 100% of sample that is accountable is in PMIS

Facilities and Property Management 2.1.d. inventory is performed yearly Inventory is performed more frequently than yearly. Inventory is performed yearly Inventory is performed less frequently than yearly Inventory is not performed

Facilities and Property Management 2.2 There is proper separation of duties for asset management? This means: N/A

Facilities and Property Management 2.2.a. the same person is not ordering and receiving N/A Two different staff members are performing the ordering and the receiving functions N/A The same staff member is performing the ordering and receiving functions

Facilities and Property Management 2.2.b. the same person is not storing, issuing, and inventorying (can do 2/3 but not all) N/A At least two different staff members are performing the storing, issuing and inventorying functions (can do 2 of 3 but not all) N/A The same staff member is performing the storing, issuing and inventorying functions

Petty Cash 3.1 Does the country perform cash counts regularly? N/A

Petty Cash 3.1.a. Does the country perform announced cash counts? N/A Announced cash counts are performed monthly. N/A Announced cash counts are not performed

Petty Cash 3.1.b. Does the country perform unannounced cash counts? N/A Unannounced cash counts are performed quarterly. N/A Unannounced cash counts are not performed

Petty Cash 3.2 Does the country have a SOP regarding petty cash management? N/A

Petty Cash 3.2.a. There is a written SOP in place for the in-country processing of petty cash N/A There is a written SOP in place with sufficient detail to process petty cash without further guidance There is a written SOP in place but it is not detailed enough to process petty cash without further guidance There is no written SOP in place for the in-country processing of petty cash

Petty Cash 3.3 Does the country have proper internal control and segregation of duties for petty cash management? N/A

Petty Cash 3.3.a. The same person is not requesting funds, storing funds, and approving the cash counts N/A The same person is not requesting funds, storing funds, and approving the cash counts N/A The same person is requesting funds, storing funds, and approving the cash counts

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.1 CDC staff roles and responsibilities are well defined. CDC field office has: N/A

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.1.a. An organogram N/A Organogram is current to reflect most recent personnel/organizational changes. Organogram exists, but lacks sufficient detail and/or is outdated Organogram does not exist

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.1.b. A SOP or relevant document which defines staff roles and responsibilities (Project Officer, CoAg Management Team Members, Activities Managers etc.) N/A Personnel listed on organogram are performing appropriate duties; PO, activity managers, and CoAg management team members roles and responsibilities are well defined in written SOP and adhered to within the office PO, activity managers, and CoAg management team members' are performing their roles and responsibilities, but not in accordance with the SOP; or the SOP exists but listed personnel are not performing duties SOP does not exist

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.2 Adequate Co-Ag files are maintained by CDC Co-Ag Project Officers. All CoAg files from 2008 to present must include at a minimum the following documents: N/A

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.2.a. FOA N/A 100% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element 90% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element Less than 90% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.2.b. Grantee IPR/continuation applications N/A 100% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element 90% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element Less than 90% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.2.c. CDC technical and scientific review and 1385

Note: 1385s located in country will most likely not be fully signed as HQ does not systematically provide fully signed 1385s to the field. N/A 100% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element 90% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element Less than 90% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.2.d. NOA N/A 100% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element 90% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element Less than 90% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.2.e. Audits (when applicable)

Note: Project Officers are not the official receipt point for audits. The lack of an audit in a file folder does not necessarily mean that the PO failed to obtain the required audit. The PO should be made aware that any audit copy received must be filed. N/A 100% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element 90% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element Less than 90% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.2.f. FSR N/A 100% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element 90% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element Less than 90% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.2.g. Documentation of any post-award grants action requests such as carryover, supplementals, TR approvals etc. (when applicable) N/A 100% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element 90% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element Less than 90% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.2.h. Site visit reports N/A 100% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element 90% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element Less than 90% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.2.i. Correspondence (technical meeting notes, etc.) N/A 100% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element 90% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element Less than 90% of CoAg files reviewed contain this element

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.3 There is an adequate CoAg management tracking system in place which has, at a minimum, the following components: N/A

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.3.a. a list of all CoAgs (comprehensive) N/A 100% of active CoAgs are listed Less than 100% of active CoAgs are listed There is no tracking system

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.3.b. basic CoAg information (CoAg #, name of grantee, budget and project period, approved and funded amounts, type and amount of restriction) The system includes basic CoAg information and other associated information such as restrictions, project officer name, activity manager name) The system includes all basic CoAg information such as CoAg #, name of grantee, project period, funding period) The system includes some but not all of the basic CoAg information There is no tracking system

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.3.c. continuations as well as all post-award CoAg actions The system tracks continuations as well as all other post award CoAg actions and the tracking system is reconciled to the HQ tracking system The system tracks continuations as well as all other post award CoAg actions The system tracks continuations but no other post award actions There is no tracking system

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.3.d. is current with all extramural actions N/A The tracking system is current with all extramural actions N/A The tracking system is not current with all extramural actions

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.3.e. SOP in place for tracking/updating CoAg management system N/A A SOP exists and is followed by Extramural Staff (as evidenced by 2.3 a-d) A SOP exists but is not fully adhered to by the Extramural staff There is no SOP

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.4. There is an adequate ADS restrictions tracking system in place which has, at a minimum, the following components: N/A

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.4.a. a comprehensive list of all CoAgs with ADS restrictions N/A 100% of active CoAgs that have ADS restrictions are listed Less than 100% of active CoAgs that have ADS restrictions are listed There is no tracking system

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.4.b. basic CoAg information (CoAg #, name of grantee, date and amount of restriction) The system includes basic CoAg information such as FOA # and title, CoAg #, name of grantee, project period, funding period and other associated information such as restrictions, project officer name, activity manager name) The system includes basic CoAg information such as CoAg #, name of grantee, project period, funding period) The system includes some but not all of the basic CoAg information There is no tracking system

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.4.c. restriction as well as restriction releases The tracking system lists all restrictions by date and the restriction releases and tracking system is reconciled with NOAs and ADS HQ tracking system The tracking system lists all restrictions by date and the restriction releases The system tracks restrictions but not releases There is no tracking system

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.4.d. be maintained/updated weekly The tracking system is update more than weekly The tracking system is updated weekly The tracking system is updated less often than weekly There is no tracking system

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.4.e. A SOP in place for tracking/updating ADS restrictions N/A A SOP exists and is followed by Extramural Staff A SOP exists but is not fully adhered to by Extramural staff There is no SOP

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.5 Process in place for routinely following-up and resolving past due actions N/A Analyzes data from tracking system to follow-up on outstanding actions as appropriate Follows-up when outstanding actions are brought to the attention of staff by the partner or CDC/HQ No evidence of follow-up

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.6 Standard operating procedures exist, and are implemented, for financial/administrative grants oversight which includes, but are not limited to: N/A

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.6.a. Technical Review N/A SOP exists and is followed by Extramural Staff SOP exists but is not fully adhered to by Extramural staff; or Extramural staff carry out oversight duties but in the absence of a formal SOP There is no SOP

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.6.b. standard post award grants actions N/A SOP exists and is followed by Extramural Staff SOP exists but is not fully adhered to by Extramural staff; or Extramural staff carry out oversight duties but in the absence of a formal SOP There is no SOP

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.6.c. progress reports and FSRs review N/A SOP exists and is followed by Extramural Staff SOP exists but is not fully adhered to by Extramural staff; or Extramural staff carry out oversight duties but in the absence of a formal SOP There is no SOP

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.6.d. audit review and follow-up N/A SOP exists and is followed by Extramural Staff SOP exists but is not fully adhered to by Extramural staff; or Extramural staff carry out oversight duties but in the absence of a formal SOP There is no SOP

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.6.e. Site-Visits N/A SOP exists and is followed by Extramural Staff SOP exists but is not fully adhered to by Extramural staff; or Extramural staff carry out oversight duties but in the absence of a formal SOP There is no SOP

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.7 All CoAg documents including CoAg files, tracking systems, SOPs, CDC grants policies, etc. are: N/A

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.7.a. warehoused on a share drive N/A All CoAg documents including CoAg files, tracking systems, SOPs, CDC grants policies, etc. are warehoused on a share drive Some CoAg documents including CoAg files, tracking systems, SOPs, CDC grants policies, etc. are warehoused on a share drive The share drive is not utilized

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.7.b. accessible to CDC CoAg management, budget and leadership staff (DD, CD N/A CoAg management information is accessible to all CDC CoAg management, budget and leadership staff CoAg management information is accessible to some but not all CDC CoAg management, budget and leadership staff CoAg management information is not accessible to CDC CoAg management, budget or leadership staff

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.7.c. proprietary information is secure. N/A Proprietary information is secure Most, but not all, proprietary information is secure Proprietary information is not secure

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.8. CoAg Project Officers and CoAg extramural management team demonstrate awareness of CDC policies and procedures (AAGAM, OMB circulars, HHS grants policy statement) and updates from HQ (communicated via the DGHA weekly update). N/A CoAg Project Officers demonstrate awareness of CDC policies and procedures (AAGAM, OMB circulars, HHS grants policy statement) and updates from HQ (communicated via the DGHA weekly update). CoAg Project Officers demonstrate awareness of some of the sources for CDC policies and procedures (AAGAM, OMB circulars, HHS grants policy statement) and updates from HQ (communicated via the DGHA weekly update). CoAg Project Officers do not demonstrate awareness of the sources for HQ updates

Cooperative Agreement Management Internal 4.8.a. Field Office CoAg management SOPs incorporate any changes/updates from…