FY25 UConn 2000 Report - TB063026.pdf

Agreed-Upon Procedures:

UConn 2000 Infrastructure Program as Required by Sec. 10a-109z of the Connecticut General Statutes

University of Connecticut

Year Ended June 30, 2025

UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT

Agreed-Upon Procedures: UConn 2000 Infrastructure Program as Required by Sec. 10a-109z of the Connecticut General Statutes

Table of Contents

Sec. 10a-109z of the Connecticut General Statutes:

Independent Accountants’ Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures 1

Sec. 10a-109z of the Connecticut General Statutes 2-20

Appendix A – University of Connecticut (Storrs and Regional Campuses) and UConn Health - FY25 UConn 2000 AUP: Expenditure and Initial Contract Testing Summary 21-23

Appendix B – University of Connecticut (Storrs and Regional Campuses) and UConn Health - FY25 UConn 2000 AUP: Change Order Testing Summary 24

CBIZ CPAs P.C.

53 State Street

17th Floor

Boston, MA 02109

P: 617.807.5000

CBIZCPAS.COM

Independent Accountants’ Report on Applying Agreed-Upon Procedures

To the Board of Trustees and Joint Audit and Compliance Committee University of Connecticut Storrs, Connecticut

We have performed the procedures enumerated below on the UConn 2000 Infrastructure Program as required by Sec. 10a-109z of the Connecticut General Statutes for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 to assist the University of Connecticut (the “University”), the University of Connecticut Health Center (“UConn Health”), its Board of Trustees and the Joint Audit and Compliance Committee (collectively, the “Responsible Parties”) with meeting the requirements under Connecticut General Statutes Section 10a-109z (the “Subject Matter”). The University’s management is responsible for meeting the aforementioned requirements.

The Responsible Parties have agreed to and acknowledged that the procedures performed are appropriate to meet the intended purpose of meeting the requirements of the Subject Matter. This report may not be suitable for any other purpose. The procedures performed may not address all the items of interest to a user of this report and may not meet the needs of all users of this report and, as such, users are responsible for determining whether the procedures performed are appropriate for their purposes.

The procedures and the associated results are described on pages 2 through 20 of this report.

We were engaged by the University to perform this agreed-upon procedures engagement and conducted our engagement in accordance with attestation standards established by the AICPA. We were not engaged to and did not conduct an examination or review engagement, the objective of which would be the expression of an opinion or conclusion, respectively, on the Subject Matter. Accordingly, we do not express such an opinion or conclusion. Had we performed additional procedures, other matters might have come to our attention that would have been reported to you.

We are required to be independent of the Responsible Parties and to meet our other ethical responsibilities in accordance with the relevant ethical requirements related to our agreed-upon procedures engagement.

This report is intended solely for the information and use of the Board of Trustees, the Joint Audit and Compliance Committee, General Assembly of the Connecticut State Legislature and management of the University and UConn Health and is not intended to be and should not be used by anyone other than these specified parties.

March 10, 2026 Boston, Massachusetts

Our procedures and results related to UConn 2000 Infrastructure Program as required by Connecticut General Statutes Section 10a-109z are as follows:

Expenditure Testing:

Procedure:

1. Obtain a report of total UConn 2000 general obligation bond expenditures by project from UConn for Fiscal Year June 30, 2025. To ensure completeness, this report will also include non-UConn 2000 funded expenditures for Fiscal Year June 30, 2025 on projects where any amount of UConn 2000 general obligation bond funded expenditures are present.

Result:

1. We obtained a report of total UConn 2000 general obligation bond expenditures by project from the UConn management team for Fiscal Year June 30, 2025. The report included non-UConn 2000 funded expenditures for Fiscal Year June 30, 2025 on projects where any amount of UConn 2000 general obligation bond fund expenditures were present. We observed that when an invoice for work completed in the current fiscal year is received in the subsequent fiscal year, the transaction is included in the subsequent fiscal year report.

2. From the report obtained in Procedure 1, select all projects, including capital equipment groups/projects, with total fiscal year expenditures greater than $500,000.

2. From the report we obtained as part of Procedure 1, all projects including capital equipment groups/projects with total fiscal year expenditures greater than $500,000 were selected for testing.

There were 22 construction projects that met this criteria and 3 capital equipment groups/projects.

See Appendix A for this listing.

3. For the construction projects selected in Procedure 2, obtain a report of inception-to-date expenditures. Additionally, obtain the Board of Trustees (“BoT”) budget approval for each construction project. Compare the total expenditures to the BoT approved budget; if expenditures exceed the BoT budget, this is an exception.

3. We noted 22 construction projects that were selected in Procedure 2. For each selected construction project, a report of inception-to-date expenditures was obtained and compared to the Board of Trustees approved budget. All projects were within the BoT approved budget.

4. For projects selected in Procedure 2, aggregate duplicate e-doc numbers per project and select all expenditures greater than $100,000, including expenditure transactions where offsetting credits reduce the aggregated transaction below $100,000. For projects without any expenditures greater than $100,000, select the highest dollar value expenditure.

4. For all projects that were selected in Procedure 2, duplicate e-doc numbers per project were aggregated and all expenditures greater than $100,000 were selected, including expenditures where offsetting credits reduced the aggregate transaction below $100,000. For any projects without any expenditures greater than $100,000, the highest dollar value was selected. There were 144 expenditures that met these parameters.

5. For all expenditures selected in Procedure 4, identify if the expenditure is to an external source supported by a third-party invoice (identified by Kuali Financial System (“KFS”) Payment Request (“PREQ”)), or an internal/related party source (identified by KFS Internal Billing (“IB”) / Distribution of Income and Expense (“DI”) / Journal Voucher (“JV”) / General Ledger Transfer (“GLT”) and Disbursement Vouchers (“DVCA”)).

5. We identified the expenditures as follows: Of the 144 expenditures that met the parameters of Procedure 4, 125 were PREQ, 5 were IB, 7 were DI, 3 were GLT and 4 were DVCA. We did not identify any expenditures that were coded as JV.

Procedures:

6. For all selected expenditures in Procedure 5 made to external sources that are supported by third-party invoices (PREQ):

a. Locate the corresponding transaction within the HuskyBuy procurement and payment system.

b. Inspect the addressee of the supporting invoice for evidence the invoice is addressed to

UConn Health, the University of Connecticut or UConn.

c. Inspect the invoice for the Vendor, Invoice Number or Payment Application Number, Invoice

Date, and Invoice Amount, and compare the attributes to the HuskyBuy Invoice for agreement.

If vendor names do not agree, determine if the difference is due to a merger, acquisition, DBA or other business combination and is therefore valid. For construction Payment Applications, refer to UConn procedures pertaining to the assignment of invoice numbers and date to AIA Applications for Payment. Invoice amounts can disagree up to $5.00, or by any amount if an intentional short payment occurred.

d. Obtain a list from UConn identifying approved authorizers and their authorized designees based on UConn authorization thresholds and payment types.

e. Inspect the Approvals and/or History tabs within the HuskyBuy Invoice and compare authorizations to the list of authorized approvers obtained in Procedure 6.d and determine the electronic approvals match based on authorization guidelines. Approval may alternatively be located in the “Comments” tab of the Invoice if ad-hoc routing was not obtained.

f. Mathematically check the amount of the supporting invoice.

Results:

6.

a. We located the corresponding transaction within the HuskyBuy procurement and payment system for each of the 125 expenditures that were supported by third-party invoices (PREQ) without exception.

b. We inspected the addressee of the supporting invoice noting that they were addressed to UConn Health, the University of Connecticut or UConn without exception.

c. We inspected the invoices noting vendor, invoice number or payment application number, invoice date and invoice amount and compared to the HuskyBuy invoice without exception.

d. We obtained a list from UConn identifying approved authorizers and their authorized designees based on the UConn authorization thresholds and payment types.

e. Using the list obtained in Procedure 6.d, we inspected the approvals and/or history tabs within the HuskyBuy invoice system noting that the approvals agreed to approved authorizers without exception.

f. We mathematically checked the amount of the supporting invoices without exception.

7. For all selected expenditures in Procedure 6 governed by AIA construction contracts that are not procured using Stipulated Sum contracts, identify the related purchase order and obtain copies of all current fiscal year construction payment applications from HuskyBuy, regardless of value.

Utilizing the construction payment applications:

a. If applicable, obtain documentation to support the actual costs of the Contractors’ performance and payment bonds, noting these undergo a final reconciliation at the end of the project. Compare to the amounts billed, noting any variances from the contract terms.

b. If applicable, obtain documentation to support the actual costs of insurances charged, and compare to the amounts billed, noting any variances from the contract terms.

c. Obtain a job cost report from the contractor which reconciles to its current fiscal year billings.

d. Review the job cost report to identify any duplicate charges.

7.

a. We identified 83 expenditures from Procedure 6 that were governed by AIA contracts. We obtained documentation that support the actual costs of the contractor’s performance and payment bonds. There was one project in which the contractor was unable to produce the performance and payment bond invoice support for approximately $940. UConn management has indicated the University expects a subsequent credit for the bond amount will be applied to the project’s next application for payment. No other exceptions identified.

b. We obtained documentation supporting actual costs of insurances charged and compared to the amounts billed and identified two exceptions. There were two projects in which the contractor was unable to produce the insurance invoice support totaling approximately $22,300. UConn management has indicated the University expects subsequent credits for the insurance amounts will be applied to the project’s next application for payment. No other exceptions identified.

c. We obtained job cost reports for projects governed by AIA construction contracts in order to reconcile the job cost report to current fiscal year billings. We identified one job cost report that was provided as of July 31, 2025. This job cost report was unable to be reconciled to billings, with the job cost report being approximately $110 less than the billings. No other

d. We examined the job cost reports obtained as part of Procedure 7.c and identified two duplicate charges totaling approximately $440. UConn management has indicated the University expects to receive a credit for these amounts on future billings. No other exceptions were noted.

8. For all selected expenditures in Procedure 5 made to internal/related party sources that are supported by internal documents (IB/DI/JV/GLT and DVCA):

a. Obtain the KFS e-doc.

b. Obtain a list from UConn identifying approved authorizers and their authorized designees with corresponding approval thresholds for the type of e-doc.

c. For IB/DI/JV/GLT transactions, inspect the Route Log approvals in the KFS e-doc and compare authorizations to the list obtained in Procedure 8.b and determine whether the electronic approvals match based on transaction type and authorized dollar thresholds.

Approval may alternatively be located in the “Notes” section of the e-doc if ad-hoc routing was not obtained.

i. Compare the support within the KFS e-doc to the entry in KFS and check for agreement, noting this can take a variety of forms, including references to source transactions.

d. For DVCA transactions, locate the corresponding transaction within the HuskyBuy procurement and payment system. Inspect the Approvals and/or History tab within the HuskyBuy Invoice and compare authorizations to the list obtained in Procedure 8.b and determine if the electronic approvals match based on transaction type and authorized dollar thresholds. Approval may alternatively be located in the “Comments” tab of the Invoice if ad-hoc routing was not obtained.

i. Compare the support within the HuskyBuy “Attachments” tab to the entry in HuskyBuy and check for agreement, noting this can take a variety of forms.

ii. For DVCA transactions that specify reimbursement to UConn Health in the “Entry

Description”:

1. Obtain the official reimbursement letter and verify the reimbursement has been authorized by the UConn Health Controller or another authorized designee.

2. Obtain the reimbursement summary which lists the individual expenditures being reimbursed and obtain the detailed supporting backup.

a. For expenditures to an external third party, select all individual expenditures greater than $100,000, locate the related invoice within the detailed supporting backup and a) verify addressee of the supporting invoice for evidence the invoice is addressed to UConn Health, the University of Connecticut or UConn, and b) compare the Vendor and Invoice Amount to the amount per the summary, noting certain projects are allocated to multiple funding sources. In instances of multiple funding sources, verify whether there is an allocation included within the detailed supporting backup, and compare the allocated amount submitted for reimbursement to the amount per the summary.

b. For expenditures to an internal source, select all individual expenditures greater than $100,000 and compare the amount per the supporting documentation to the amount per the summary.

8.

a. For all selected expenditures, which totaled 19, we obtained the corresponding KFS e-doc.

b. We obtained a list from UConn identifying approved authorizers and their authorized designees with corresponding approval thresholds for the applicable type of e-doc.

c. We identified 15 IB/DI/JV/GLT transactions. For each of those transactions, we inspected the

Route Log approvals in the KFS e-doc and compared authorizations to the list obtained in 8.b and determined the electronic approvals matched based on the transaction type and authorized dollar thresholds.

i. As applicable, we compared the support within the KFS e-doc “attachments” section to the entry in KFS and checked for agreement noting no exceptions.

d. For 4 DVCA transactions, we located the corresponding transaction within the HuskyBuy procurement and payment system. We inspected the approvals and/or history tab within the HuskyBuy invoice and compared authorizations to the list obtained in Procedure 8.b. We determined the electronic approvals matched based on the transaction type and authorized dollar thresholds.

i. We compared the support within the HuskyBuy “Attachments” noting agreement.

ii. We identified 4 DVCA transactions that specified reimbursement to UConn Health in the

“Entry Description”.

1. For the DVCA transactions, the reimbursement letter was viewed for authorization by the UConn Health Controller or another authorized designee.

2. For each DVCA transaction, the reimbursement summary and detailed supporting backup was obtained.

a. For the 22 external transactions over $100,000, we verified the supporting invoice was addressed to UConn Health, the University of Connecticut, or UConn. We also compared the vendor and invoice amount to the summary without exception. For invoices that had multiple funding sources, we verified if there was an allocation within the detailed supporting backup and compared the allocated amount to the summary without exception.

b. We did not identify any internal transactions over $100,000.

9. For selected expenditures in Procedure 8 supported by a DI e-doc that specify “management fee” or “payroll allocation” in the Explanation field of the DI e-doc:

a. Inspect the backup documents in the “attachments” section to identify the Project ID of the expenditure selected and compare the Project ID to the report obtained in Procedure 1 for agreement.

b. Inspect the DI e-doc to identify the Project ID and compare the Project ID to the backup document obtained in Procedure 9.a for agreement, excluding DI e-doc that specify “management fee” or “payroll allocation” for capital equipment as these do not have Project IDs.

c. Inspect the DI e-doc to identify the amount shown for the Project ID selected and compare the amount to the “management fee/payroll” amount shown in the backup document obtained in Procedure 9.a for agreement. Mathematically check the amount of the “management fee” or “payroll allocation” selected by multiplying the percentage and period expenses in the backup document obtained in 9.a.

9. We identified 1 expenditure in Procedure 8 that was supported by a DI e-doc that specified “management fee” or “labor allocation” in the explanation field of the DI e-doc.

a. We inspected the backup documents in the “attachments” section and identified the Project

ID of the expenditure selected and compared the Project ID to the report obtained in Procedure 1 noting agreement.

b. We inspected the DI e-doc identifying the Project ID and compared the Project ID to the backup document obtained in Procedure 9.a noting no exceptions. DI e-docs that specified “management fee” or “labor allocation” for capital equipment were excluded.

c. We inspected the DI e-doc identifying the amount shown for the Project ID selected and compared the amount to the “management fee/labor allocation” amount shown in the backup document obtained in Procedure 9.a noting agreement. We mathematically checked the amount of the “management fee” or “labor allocation” selected by multiplying the percentage and period expenses in the backup document that was obtained in 9.a noting no exceptions.

Contract Testing:

1. Obtain a report of total UConn 2000 general obligation bond expenditures by project for Fiscal Year June 30, 2025 from UConn. To ensure completeness, this report will also include non- UConn 2000 funded expenditures for Fiscal Year June 30, 2025 on projects where any amount of UConn 2000 general obligation bond funded expenditures are present.

1. We obtained a report of total UConn 2000 general obligation bond expenditures by project for Fiscal Year June 30, 2025 from the UConn management team. This report included non-UConn 2000 funded expenditures for Fiscal Year June 30, 2025 on projects where any amount of UConn 2000 general obligation bond funded expenditures were present. We observed that when an invoice for procedures completed in the current fiscal year is received in the subsequent fiscal year, the transaction is included in the subsequent fiscal year report.

2. From the report obtained in Procedure 1, select all projects with total fiscal year expenditures greater than $500,000.

2. Using the report obtained in Contracts Procedure 1, all projects with total fiscal expenditures greater than $500,000 were selected. See Appendix A for further detail of the projects selected.

3. For projects selected in Procedure 2, identify those where a construction contractor has been engaged. Perform Contract Testing Procedures 4 - 9 on construction contracts initiated in the current fiscal year and Contract Change Order Testing Procedures 10 - 19 on all projects identified with construction contracts.

3. We identified 20 projects where a construction contractor has been engaged. Construction contracts for 11 of the identified projects were initiated in the current fiscal year which will be tested in Procedures 4 - 9 and Procedures 10 - 19, and 9 contracts which will be tested only in Procedures 10 - 19.

4. For construction contracts initiated in the current fiscal year identified in Procedure 3, obtain the Contract Approval Request Form (“CAR”) or “Electronic Workflow Approval” (“EWA”) for the contract.

4. For 11 of the construction projects identified in Procedure 3, we obtained a CAR or EWA noting no exceptions.

5. Inspect the CAR or EWA obtained in Procedure 4 for the Vendor, Project Name, and Project ID and compare the attributes to the report obtained in Procedure 1 for agreement. In limited instances, projects may have sub-projects and the Project Name and/or Project ID of the sub-project may differ from the report; these are not exceptions.

5. For 11 of the construction projects for which we obtained the CAR or EWA in Procedure 4, we inspected the CAR or EWA for the Vendor, Project Name and Project ID and compared the attributes to the report obtained in Contracts Procedure 1 for agreement without exception.

6. Obtain a list of approved authorizers or their authorized designees based on project type and contract value and the associated approval dollar thresholds.

6. We obtained from management a list of approved authorizers or their authorized designees based on project type and contract value and the associated approval dollar thresholds.

7. Inspect the CAR or EWA obtained in Procedure 4 for authorizations and compare to the list of approved authorizers or their authorized designees provided by UConn for agreement based on approval dollar thresholds.

7. For 11 of the construction projects for which we obtained the CAR or EWA in Procedure 4, we inspected the CAR or EWA for authorizations and compared the authorizations to the list of approved authorizers or their authorized designees provided by UConn for agreement based on approval dollar thresholds without exception.

8. Obtain the executed contract and President's Contract Signing Authority Delegation letter. For projects with construction contracts initiated in the current fiscal year identified in Procedure 3, inspect the executed contract to identify the title of the person who signed the owner’s authorization and compare it to the President’s Contract Signing Authority Delegation letter for agreement based on approval dollar thresholds. Inspect the executed contract to identify the Contractor signature line has been signed by the Contractor.

8. We obtained the executed contract and President’s Contract Signing Authority Delegation letter.

For projects selected in Contracts Procedure 3, we performed the following:

a. Inspected the executed contract and identified the title of the person who signed the owner’s authorization and compared that signature to the President’s Contract Signing Authority Delegation letter for agreement based on approval dollar thresholds without exception.

b. Inspected the executed contract observing the Contractor signature line had been signed by the Contractor without exception.

9. Inspect the executed contract obtained in Procedure 8 to identify the initial contract amount and compare the amount to the initial HuskyBuy purchase order (or increase if pre-existing purchase order) for agreement.

a. If amounts do not match by more than $5.00, then inspect the CAR/EWA and/or Unifier

Unfunded Commits document and/or the Notes section of the HuskyBuy PO e-doc for written comments identifying the amounts which are to be designated as “Allocated”, “Obligated” and/or “Future Funding”.

b. Mathematically add all amounts designated as “Allocated”, “Obligated” and/or “Future Funding” to the PO amount and compare the result to the initial contract amount identified in the executed contract for agreement.

9. We inspected the executed contracts, identifying the initial contract amount and compared the amount to the initial HuskyBuy purchase order noting agreement.

a. We did not identify any differences in excess of $5.00.

b. We mathematically added all amounts designated as “Allocated”, “Obligated” and/or “Future

Funding” to the PO amount and compared the result to the initial contract amount identified in the executed contract without exception.

10. For all projects where a construction contractor has been identified in Procedure 3, obtain a Change Order (“CO”) Analysis report from UConn, if applicable.

10. For the projects selected in Contracts Procedure 3, we obtained a CO Analysis report from UConn for the projects.

11. Inspect the CO Analysis to identify the total amount of the contract. Compare the amount identified to the PO total in the Purchase Order screen in HuskyBuy as of the date of the analysis. If the identified amount from the CO Analysis exceeds the total from the Purchase Order screen in HuskyBuy, proceed to Procedures 11.a and 11.b.

a. If amounts do not match by more than $5.00, then inspect the CAR/EWA and/or Unifier

Unfunded Commits Document and/or the Notes section of the HuskyBuy PO e-doc for written comments identifying the amounts which are to be designated as “Allocated”, “Obligated” and/or “Future Funding”.

b. Mathematically add all amounts designated as “Allocated”, “Obligated” and/or “Future Funding” and add the total to the PO amount and compare the results to the total on the CO Analysis for agreement.

11. For the projects selected in Procedure 10, we inspected the CO Analysis and identified the total amount of the contract. We then compared the amount identified in the CO Analysis to the PO total in the Purchase Order screen in HuskyBuy based on the date the CO Analysis was completed. No items were identified in which the CO analysis exceeded the total from the Purchase Order screen in HuskyBuy; as such, Procedures 11.a and 11.b were not required.

12. From the CO Analysis, select all change orders greater than $100,000 (including credit change orders) where the Purchase Order Revision within HuskyBuy was fully approved in the fiscal year under review. For projects without any change orders greater than $100,000, select the largest value change order (including credit change orders) fully approved within HuskyBuy in the fiscal year under review.

12. From the CO Analysis, we selected all change orders greater than $100,000 where the Purchase Order Revision within HuskyBuy was fully approved in the fiscal year under review. For projects without any change orders greater than $100,000, we selected the highest dollar value change order that was fully approved within HuskyBuy for the fiscal year ended June 30, 2025 resulting in 26 change orders. No exceptions noted. See Appendix B for listing of change orders selected.

13. For change orders selected in Procedure 12, obtain the EWA and executed change order documents from KFS, HuskyBuy and/or Unifier.

13. For change orders selected in Procedure 12, we obtained the EWA and executed change order documents from KFS, HuskyBuy and/or Unifier without exception.

14. Inspect the executed change order to identify the Vendor, Project Name, Project ID and Amount and compare the attributes to the EWA for agreement within $5.00. In limited instances, projects may have sub-projects and the Project Name and/or Project ID of the sub-project may differ from the EWA and CO Analysis; these are not exceptions.

14. We inspected the executed change orders to identify the Vendor, Project Name, Project ID and Amount and compared the attributes to the EWA for agreement noting no exceptions.

For Procedures 15 through 19, if the selected change order is comprised of Unifier bundled Potential Change Order (PCO) and/or Construction Change Directive (CCD) transactions, obtain at least 75% coverage of the total change order value and include all individual PCO and/or CCD transactions greater than $50,000; otherwise obtain 100% coverage of the total change order value.

15. Inspect the executed change order documentation to identify the prime contractor markups on allowable cost components used for changes in the work and compare the overhead and profit percentages to the executed contract for agreement.

15. We inspected the executed change order documentation and identified the prime contractor markups used for insurance, bonds and overhead and profit (if applicable), and compared the percentages to the executed contract for agreement and allowability under the contract. No

16. Inspect the executed change order documentation to identify the subcontractor markups on

16. We inspected the executed change order documentation to identify the subcontractor markups for insurance, bonds and overhead and profit (if applicable) and compared the percentages to the executed contract for agreement and allowability under the contract. We identified two exceptions where the cost of safety, which is intended to be covered by overhead and profit markup, was incorrectly included resulting in a total difference of approximately $4,000. UConn management has indicated the University has communicated both exceptions to the applicable contractors for credit. No other exceptions identified.

17. Inspect the executed change order documentation to identify the labor rates utilized within the change order and compare to the approved rates.

17. We inspected the executed change order documentation and identified the labor rates utilized within the change order and compared then to the approved rates. No exceptions identified.

18. Inspect the EWA for authorizations and compare them to the list of approved authorizers or their authorized designees provided by UConn and determine authorizations agree based on approval dollar thresholds.

18. We inspected the EWA for authorizations and compared them to the list of approved authorizers or their authorized designees provided by UConn and determined authorizations agreed based on approval dollar thresholds without exception.

19. Mathematically check the amount of the change orders.

19. We mathematically checked the amount of the change orders for accuracy. No exceptions identified.

Contract Testing – UConn Health:

1. Obtain the UConn Health DM/Equipment reimbursements in Expenditure Testing – UConn Procedure 8.d.ii., identify those projects having reimbursements of $500,000 or more. These are the in-scope projects.

1. We obtained the UConn Health DM/Equipment reimbursements in Expenditure Testing – UConn Procedure 8.d.ii. Four projects with reimbursements of $500,000 or more were identified. See Appendix A for further detail of the projects identified.

Authorized Budget Evaluation

2. Obtain the UConn Heath Reimbursement Detail report to identify the Construction Contract Number(s), UConn 2000 Fund Code(s) and Organization Code(s) associated with each in-scope project.

2. We obtained the UConn Health Reimbursement Detail report and identified the Construction Contract Number(s), UConn 2000 Fund Code(s) and Organization Code(s) for each in-scope project.

3. Obtain the Board of Trustees Capital Projects Budget List (“BoT Budget Report”) for each in-scope project.

3. We obtained the Board of Trustees Capital Projects Budget List for each in-scope project.

4. Obtain the Ellucian Grant Inception to Date report(s) (ITD Report) for each in-scope project. Note that a project may have a single “Project-Level” ITD Report or several “Fund Code Level” ITD reports that aggregate to the Project Level values. In addition, a project may have an ITD report with a non-UConn 2000 Fund Code.

a. Identify the total project budget by aggregating the “Adjusted Budget” figure on all related ITD

Reports for the project. If the total project budget exceeds the Budget figure listed in the BoT Budget Report, this is an exception.

b. Identify the total project spend by aggregating the “Activity” figure on all related ITD Reports for the project. If the total project spend exceeds the total project budget, this is an exception.

c. For projects with multiple Fund Code Level ITD Reports, identify the reports with UConn 2000

Fund codes (as listed in the Reimbursement Detail report obtained in Procedure 2). If the fund-level spend exceeds the fund-level budget for any UConn 2000 fund code, this is an exception.

4. We obtained the Ellucian Grant Inception to Date report for each in-scope project.

a. We identified the total project budget for all in-scope projects by aggregating “Adjusted

Budget” figure on all related ITD reports. For each in-scope project, the total project budget did not exceed the Budget figure listed in the BoT Budget Report.

b. We identified the total project spend by aggregating the “Activity” figure on all related ITD

Reports for the in-scope projects. For each in-scope project, the total project spend for each of the in-scope projects was within the total project budget.

c. Three of the four in-scope projects had multiple Fund Code Level ITD reports. For these three projects, we identified the reports with UConn 2000 Fund codes, noting that fund activity was within the UConn 2000 fund code.

Purchase Order (“PO”) & Purchase Requisition (“PR”) Approvals Evaluation

5. For each Fund code associated with an in-scope project, including any non-UConn 2000 funds identified in Procedure 4, obtain the Signature Authorization – Fund/Org Lookup (Signature Authorization) Reports.

5. We obtained the Signature Authorization – Fund/Org Lookup (Signature Authorization) Reports for all in-scope projects for both UConn 2000 and non-UConn 2000 funds noting no exceptions.

6. For each Construction Contract associated with an in-scope project, obtain the related documents listed below:

a. The executed Contract or Agreement

b. The Signature Authorization – Fund/Org Lookup (Signature Authorization Reports) for each

UConn 2000 and non-UConn 2000 Fund code

c. The HuskyBuy Campus Planning Purchase Requisition Workflow (PR Workflow), which applies to projects associated with Organization Code 61033

d. The HuskyBuy Purchase Order Workflow (PO Workflow), which lists authorized PO approvers and dollar thresholds

e. The Change Order Analysis

6. For each Construction Contract associated with in-scope projects, the related documents below were obtained without exception:

a. The executed Contract or Agreement

b. The Signature Authorization – Fund/Org Lookup for each UConn 2000 and non-UConn 2000

Fund

c. The HuskyBuy Campus Planning PR Workflow for projects associated with Organization Code 61033

d. The HuskyBuy PO Workflow

e. The Change Order Analysis

7. For each Purchase Order relating to each Construction Contract associated with in-scope projects, obtain the related PO documents from HuskyBuy (HB):

a. The PO Revision List

b. The PO Summary, which is the current version of the PO

c. The PO for each version of the PO listed on the PO Revision List (including “original”)

d. The PO History for the current version of the PO

e. The Purchase Requisition (PR) History for each PR

7. We obtained the following related PO documents from HuskyBuy for each Purchase Order relating to each Construction Contract associated with in-scope projects without exception:

a. The PO Revision List

b. The PO Summary, which is the current version of the PO

c. The PO for each version of the PO listed on the PO Revision List (including “original”)

d. The PO History for the current version of the PO

e. The PR History for each PR

8. Inspect the Original PO and Identify the PO Value. Inspect the PO History and identify the Step of “Purchasing” and Action of “PO Approved”. Compare the approver in this step to the person authorized to sign for the PO Value in the PO Workflow document obtained in Procedure 6.d. If the approver isn't listed in the PO Workflow, obtain the Job title for the approver at the time of signing and compare it to the job titles in the PO Workflow for agreement.

8. We inspected the Original PO and identified the PO Value. We inspected the PO History and identified the Step of “Purchasing” and Action of “PO Approved”. We compared the approver identified in the PO to the PO Workflow document obtained in Procedure 6.d. No exceptions identified.

9. Inspect the original PO and each PO revision and identify the associated Requisition Number (PR#) for each. Inspect the PR History for each PR# to identify the associated Fund and Organization Codes, and the person who approved the “Department Approval” Step(s). Compare the Departmental approver to the approvers listed in the Signature Authorization Reports and/or the PR Workflow obtained in Procedures 6.b and 6.c for agreement. If the PR approver isn't listed in the Signature Authorization Reports and/or the PR Workflow, obtain the Job title for the approver at the time of signing and compare to the job titles in the Signature Authorization Reports and/or the PR Workflow for agreement.

9. We inspected the original PO and each PO revision and identified the associated PR#. We inspected the PR History for each PR# to identify the associated Fund and Organization Codes, and the person who approved the “Department Approval” Step(s). We compared the Departmental Approver to the Signature Authorization Reports and/or PR Workflow obtained in Procedures 6.b and 6.c. No exceptions identified.

10. Inspect the HuskyBuy PO Summary obtained in Procedure 7.b to identify the supplier/contractor and Project Number (and/or Project Name) and compare these values to the original executed contract for agreement.

10. We inspected the HuskyBuy PO Summary obtained in Procedure 7.b and identified the supplier/contractor and Project Number (and/or Project Name) and compared these values to the original executed contract for agreement. No exceptions identified.

11. Inspect the PO Summary to identify the final PO value and compare it to the Contract value for agreement within $5.00.

11. We inspected the PO Summary and identified the final PO value and compared it to the Contract value for agreement without exception.

12. From the Change Order Analysis obtained in Procedure 6.e, select all change orders greater than $100,000 (including credit change orders) where the Purchase Order Revision within HuskyBuy was fully approved in the fiscal year under review. For projects without any change orders greater than $100,000, select the largest value change order (including credit change orders) fully approved within HuskyBuy in the fiscal year under review.

12. From the CO Analysis obtained in Procedure 6.e, we selected all change orders greater than $100,000 (including credit change orders) where the Purchase Order Revision within HuskyBuy was fully approved in the fiscal year under review. For projects without any change orders greater than $100,000, we selected the largest value change order (including credit change orders) fully approved within HuskyBuy in the fiscal year under review. The aforementioned criteria resulted in 7 change orders. See Appendix B for listing of change orders selected.

13. Obtain the Change Order documentation for each Change Order selected in Procedure 12.

13. We obtained the Change Order documentation for each Change Order selected in Procedure 12.

14. Obtain the UConn Health Contract Signature Authorization list and compare it to the signatures on the Change Order documentation for agreement.

14. We obtained the UConn Health Contract Signature Authorization list and compared it to the signatures on the Change Order documentation for agreement. No exceptions identified.

15. Inspect the Change Order documentation to identify the contractor/supplier and dollar values and compare these attributes to the PO Revisions from Procedure 7.c for agreement.

15. We inspected the Change Order documentation and identified the contractor/supplier and dollar values. We compared these attributes to the PO Revisions from Procedure 7.c for agreement. No

16. Inspect the Change Order documentation to identify the contractor/subcontractor markups on

16. We inspected the Change Order documentation and identified the contractor/subcontractor markups on allowable cost components used for changes in the work and allowability under the contract. We compared the overhead and profit percentages to the executed contract. We noted exceptions on six change orders totaling approximately $25,000 of overbillings. Additionally, there were three PCO’s that did not have backup to support contractor costs totaling $9,000. UConn Health management has indicated for open contracts the University has communicated the exceptions to the applicable contractors for credit. No other exceptions identified.

17. Inspect the Change Order documentation and verify mathematical calculations.

17. We inspected the Change Order documentation and verified the mathematical calculations. Four exceptions were identified, approximately $410 relating to overbillings and approximately $1,225 relating to underbilling’s. UConn Health management has indicated for open contracts the University has communicated the exceptions to the applicable contractors for credit. No other

Total UConn 2000 FY25 Expenditures and Reimbursements 108,830,082$ UConn 2000 Expenditures and Reimbursements in AUP Defined Population 106,175,161$

UConn 2000 Expenditures Excluded from AUP Defined Population 1 2,654,921$ Expenditures and Reimbursements Tested - UConn 2000 92,508,809$

Expenditures and Reimbursements Tested - All Fund Sources 2 93,811,942$

Percent Tested of the Total UConn 2000 FY25 Expenditures and Reimbursements 85% Percent Tested of the UConn 2000 AUP Defined Population 87%

Number of Expenditure and Reimbursement Transactions Tested - UConn 2000 Funded 133 Number of Expenditure and Reimbursement Transactions Tested - All Fund Sources 144

Total UConn Health Reimbursements in UConn 2000 FY25 Expenditures and Reimbursements 6,097,543$ Reimbursements Tested Per Procedure 8.d.ii.2. 4,004,159$

Percent of UConn Health Reimbursements Tested of the Total Reimbursements 66% Number of UConn Health Reimbursements Tested in UConn AUP Procedure 8.d.ii.2. 22

Number of UConn 2000 Initial Contracts Tested - UConn 12 Value of UConn 2000 Initial Contracts Tested - UConn 185,718,114$

Total FY25 UConn 2000 Change Orders Executed - UConn 7,163,001$ Value of Change Orders Tested 6,559,677$

Percent of Change Orders Tested of the Total Change Orders Executed 92% Number of Change Orders Tested 26

Number of UConn 2000 Initial Contracts Tested - UConn Health 3 Value of UConn 2000 Initial Contracts Tested - UConn Health 8,482,392$

Total FY25 UConn 2000 Change Orders Executed - UConn Health 1,276,831$ Value of Change Orders Tested 894,191$

Percent of Change Orders Tested of the Total Change Orders Executed 70% Number of Change Orders Tested 7

Appendix A

Contract and Change Order Testing Summary - UConn (Storrs and Regionals)

Contract and Change Order Testing Summary - UConn Health

2 Per UConn AUP Expenditure Testing Procedure 4, all transactions on in-scope projects are tested, regardless of fund source. For FY25, this included ($70.7M) of Operating transactions, $71.0M of Student Fee Revenue Bond transactions and $1.0M of Foundation transactions.

Expenditure Testing Summary - UConn (Storrs and Regionals) and UConn Health Reimbursements

FY25 UConn 2000 AUP: University of Connecticut (Storrs and Regional Campuses) and UConn Health - Expenditure and Contract Testing Summary

Expenditure Testing Summary - UConn Procedure 8.d.ii.2 on UConn Health Reimbursements

1 Value represents aggregated costs on projects with less than $500,000 of current fiscal year expenditures. Population for AUP expenditure testing is defined in UConn Expenditure Testing Procedures 1-2.

Summary of FY25 UConn 2000 AUP Testing - UConn and UConn Health

Project Number Project Name

UConn 2000 Expenditures Per

Project

UConn 2000 Expenditures Tested

Per Project Construction Contract

Testing Selections 300025 Northwest Science Quad Supplemental Utility Plant 2,082,329$ 1,109,506$ Initiated in Prior Year 300050 Northwest Quad - Science 1 - Site Improvements & Tunnel Phase II 1,246,582 1,137,550 Initiated in Prior Year 300136 University Second Electrical Feed 1,385,847 724,045 Initiated in Prior Year 300149 Stamford Abutting Property Restoration 681,555 618,791 Tested in FY25 300151 Boiler Plant Equipment Replacement and Utility Tunnel Connection 2,248,462 1,482,870 Initiated in Prior Year 300174 Mirror Lake Improvements 977,708 869,747 Tested in FY25 300200 Res Life Facilities - South Campus Residence Halls Improvements 23,811,531 21,962,772 Initiated in Prior Year 300203 Jones Annex Renovation 777,978 388,241 Tested in FY25 300209 Field House - Old Recreation Center Renovation 3,435,413 3,135,552 Tested in FY25 300235 Gilbert Road Site Preparation 1,226,738 751,990 Initiated in Prior Year 300241 South Campus Infrastructure 28,846,393 27,842,365 Initiated in Prior Year 300249 PBB Research Support Expansion 526,033 109,135 N/A - In Design Phase 300251 Werth Residence Hall High Humidity Mitigation 4,131,300 4,031,004 Tested in FY25 300252 Freitas Renovation 115,093 - Initiated in Prior Year 300257 UConn Tennis Facility 713,994 528,143 Tested in FY25 300260 Academic & Research Facilities - School of Nursing Building 3,283,992 2,555,269 Tested in FY25 300264 C2E2 to IPB Phase 1 Office & Lab Renovation (TL2547) 8,147,564 6,996,324 Tested in FY25 300275 UConn Waterbury at 36 North Main 838,305 443,967 N/A - T&M Only 300281 Whitney Road Steam Improvements E-8 to Q-8 1,245,384 948,219 Tested in FY25 300284 Gampel Pavilion Renovations 1,469,535 1,300,955 Tested in FY25 901802 Academic & Research Facilities - STEM Research Center Science 1 2,309,221 2,126,291 Initiated in Prior Year 901803 Academic & Research Facilities - Gant Building Renovations - STEM 1,130,906 270,617 Tested in FY25 3

90,631,863$ 79,333,353$

UConn 2000 Expenditures per

Initiative

UConn 2000 Expenditures Tested

Per Initiative

Note: Equipment Not Subject to AUP

Contract Testing Public Safety Capital Equipment 3,773,795$ 3,454,785$ ITS Capital Equipment 2,639,444 2,321,485 Wired Access Layer (ITS) - Ongoing Cabling Refresh 3,032,516 1,301,643

9,445,755$ 7,077,913$

Project Name

3 Gant is a multi-phased project; Phases 1 and 2 were completed and subjected to AUP procedures in prior years. Construction on Phase 3 commenced in the current fiscal year;

therefore, the contract testing is limited to Phase 3 only.

FY25 UConn 2000 AUP: UConn (Storrs and Regional Campuses)

Appendix A - Continued

UConn 2000 Construction Projects (Storrs and Regional Campuses) With Over $500K In Expenditures

UConn 2000 Capital Equipment (Storrs and Regional Campuses) With Over $500K In Expenditures

Project Number Project Name

UConn 2000 Reimbursements Per

Project

UConn 2000 Reimbursements

Tested Per Project Construction Contract

Testing Selections 23-601.07 Cell & Genome Building Data Center Cooling System Upgrade 544,862$ 302,785$ Tested in FY25 22-013 Main Building Lab Renovations - 2nd Floor 711,351 708,880 Tested in Prior Year 21-034 Central Sterile Washer & Sterilizer Replacement 1,228,936 1,009,891 Tested in FY25 21-063 New England Sickle Cell Institute Renovation 1,523,080 1,439,270 Tested in FY25

4,008,229$ 3,460,826$ 4

Total UConn 2000 Reimbursements to

UConn Health

Total UCH Reimbursements

Tested Per Procedure 8.d.ii.2.

Note: Equipment Not Subject to AUP

Contract Testing UCH Deferred Maintenance 6,097,543$ 4,004,159$ 4

6,097,543$ 4,004,159$ 4 The reimbursements selected for testing are defined within UConn Expenditure Testing Procedure 8.d.ii.2., while the construction contracts selected for testing are defined within UConn Health Contract Testing Procedure 1. This resulted in a difference between the testing on reimbursements and the total reimbursements when aggregated by in-scope project.

UConn 2000 UConn Health Deferred Maintenance Construction Projects With Over $500K In Reimbursements

Appendix A - Continued

FY25 UConn 2000 AUP: UConn Health

UConn 2000 UConn Health Deferred Maintenance and Equipment Reimbursement Summary

Named Line

Project Name Contractor Name Original Contract

Value Change Order

Number Change Order

Value

Northwest Science Quad Supplemental Utility Plant Bond Brothers, Inc. 51,377,284 24 (233,899) Northwest Quad - Science 1 - Site Improvements & Tunnel Phase II Dimeo Construction Company 35,124,612 57 103,438 Stamford Abutting Property Restoration Standard Demolition Services, Inc. 1,843,312 8 484,194 Boiler Plant Equipment Replacement and Utility Tunnel Connection Bond Brothers, Inc. 29,873,543 26 268,087 Boiler Plant Equipment Replacement and Utility Tunnel Connection Bond Brothers, Inc. 29,873,543 27 1,142,989 Res Life Facilities - South Campus Residence Halls Improvements KBE Building Corporation 171,392,198 15 687,864 Res Life Facilities - South Campus Residence Halls Improvements KBE Building Corporation 171,392,198 16 997,207 Res Life Facilities - South Campus Residence Halls Improvements KBE Building Corporation 171,392,198 17 587,246 Res Life Facilities - South Campus Residence Halls Improvements KBE Building Corporation 171,392,198 18 145,313 Res Life Facilities - South Campus Residence Halls Improvements KBE Building Corporation 171,392,198 19 556,964 Res Life Facilities - South Campus Residence Halls Improvements KBE Building Corporation 171,392,198 20 (1,358,405) Res Life Facilities - South Campus Residence Halls Improvements KBE Building Corporation 171,392,198 21 440,207 Res Life Facilities - South Campus Residence Halls Improvements KBE Building Corporation 171,392,198 22 547,075 Res Life Facilities - South Campus Residence Halls Improvements KBE Building Corporation 171,392,198…