Seal of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts
Massachusetts Audit Explorer - what the State Auditor found

← all audits

Audit of the Executive Office for Administration and Finance (May 29, 2024)

May 29, 2024 · Executive Office for Administration and Finance · Read the full official report on mass.gov ↗

Published May 29, 2024 Audit covers July 1, 2020 – April 30, 2022 Under Diana DiZoglio · 2023–present

In plain English
Auditors found weaknesses in how A&F checked some COVID relief spending, followed up with municipalities, and kept track of vendors barred from state contracts.
source
“A&F’s FFO could not ensure that all subrecipient expenditures and supporting documentation met the CARES Act requirements regarding how the subrecipient spent funds it received through the CvRF.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
What is this?

This is a state performance audit of the Massachusetts Executive Office for Administration and Finance, covering July 1, 2020 through April 30, 2022.

“In accordance with Section 12 of Chapter 11 of the Massachusetts General Laws, the Office of the State Auditor has conducted a performance audit of the Executive Office for Administration and Finance (A&F) for the period July 1, 2020 through April 30, 2022.”
Why was it audited?

The auditor checked whether A&F properly reviewed COVID relief money sent to municipalities and whether it kept the required list of vendors that should not get state contracts.

“The purpose of our audit was to determine the following:”
Why it matters

If spending records are incomplete, Massachusetts could be at risk of having federal COVID relief money taken back.

“This could then lead the Federal government to recoup funds received through the CvRF.”
What's in it for me?

This involves public money that went to cities and towns for pandemic-related costs, so residents have a stake in whether it was tracked and checked properly.

“The Commonwealth used part of the CvRF to make approximately $502 million available to municipalities through the CvRF Municipal Program (CvRF-MP).”
The bottom line

The audit found three main problems: incomplete documentation for one sampled expense, missing formal follow-up meetings with municipalities that had review findings, and no consolidated statewide debarred vendor list with all required details.

“Below is a summary of our findings and recommendations, with links to each page listed.”
What happens next

The auditor recommended better documentation collection, meetings and written guidelines for municipalities with findings, and a complete consolidated barred-vendor list; the auditor also said the office will follow up.

“As part of our post-audit review process, we will be following up on this issue in the near future.”
Why it's significant

The report matters beyond one office because weak vendor tracking could let agencies accidentally give contracts to businesses that are supposed to be barred.

“Because state agencies must check multiple debarred vendor lists before awarding a contract, if A&F does not maintain a consolidated debarred vendor list that contains all the required information, then there is a higher-than-acceptable risk that state agencies could mistakenly award state contracts to debarred vendors.”
Jargon, unpacked

The CARES Act was the federal pandemic relief law, and the Coronavirus Relief Fund was the pot of federal money used here to cover COVID-19 expenses.

“According to A&F’s website, the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES) Act, enacted by Congress on March 27, 2020, provided Massachusetts with approximately $2.7 billion from the Coronavirus Relief Fund (CvRF) to cover expenses related to the COVID-19 pandemic.”

1 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown

What the Auditor checked

What the Auditor found

The Federal Funds Office did not collect all necessary supporting documentation during desk reviews.
grants managementrecordkeeping/documentationinternal controls

Why it matters: FFO could not ensure CvRF Municipal Program expenditures complied with CARES Act requirements, creating risk that the federal government could recoup funds.

Standard: The Office of the Comptroller of the Commonwealth’s “Sub-Recipient Monitoring Policy” and Section 601(d) of Title VI of the Social Security Act. ( Office of the Comptroller of the Commonwealth’s “Sub-Recipient Monitoring Policy”; Section 601(d) of Title VI of the Social Security Act )

1 recommendation
  • FFO should collect all necessary supporting documentation from the municipalities it sampled during its desk review process.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "However, if a similar program is implemented in the future, FFO will be sure to establish policies that ensure that all necessary supporting documentation for each review is collected."
Auditor: "However, FFO could not provide documentation confirming that one of the expenditures was incurred during the period March 1, 2020 through December 31, 2021, as required."
The Federal Funds Office did not conduct required remediation meetings with municipalities that had desk review findings.
grants managementinternal controlsrecordkeeping/documentation

Why it matters: Municipalities may not understand or implement FFO’s recommendations, including enhanced policies and procedures.

Standard: FFO’s “Compliance with COVID-19 Federal Funding” policy and FFO’s “Desk Review Process for Coronavirus Relief Fund” document. ( “Eligibility Review” section of FFO’s “Compliance with COVID-19 Federal Funding” policy; Section II(b) of FFO’s “Desk Review Process for Coronavirus Relief Fund” document; Section 200.332(d)(2) of Title 2 of the Code of Federal Regulations )

2 recommendations
  • FFO should conduct meetings with every municipality that has desk review findings.
  • FFO should, as part of its formal remediation process, develop and document guidelines for conducting meetings with any municipality that has desk review findings.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "While FFO did not have a documented formal remediation process, there was follow up conducted following findings in desk audits and there was an internal process in which FFO engaged in an interactive process with municipalities when a finding arose in the desk audit."
Auditor: "As such, FFO did not provide any evidence that it conducted any meetings with municipalities that had findings resulting from desk reviews."
A&F did not maintain one complete consolidated debarred vendor list with all required information.
procurement/contractsvendor oversightinternal controls

Why it matters: State agencies could mistakenly award state contracts to debarred vendors.

Standard: Section 29F(b) of Chapter 29 of the General Laws. ( Section 29F(b) of Chapter 29 of the General Laws )

2 recommendations
  • A&F should maintain a consolidated debarred vendor list.
  • A&F should develop policies, procedures, and internal controls to ensure that it maintains a consolidated debarred vendor list that contains all the required information.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "Over the next year, we will consider and develop policies, procedures and internal controls to best meet that mandate beyond current practice."
Auditor: "A&F should take measures even sooner to address our concerns on this matter, as every day that passes creates additional opportunities for state agencies and local governments to contract with debarred vendors."

More audits of this entity

Other Office of the State Auditor reports on Executive Office for Administration and Finance .

See this entity's page with all 3 audits →