Franklin County Regional Housing and Redevelopment Authority
November 7, 2013 · Read the full official report (PDF) ↗
Published November 7, 2013 Audit covers October 1, 2010 – September 30, 2012 Under Suzanne M. Bump · 2011–2023
source
“Based on our audit, we have concluded that, for the period October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2012, although the Authority established internal controls over the procurement of goods and services, the controls were not adequately documented.”
Read the plain-English breakdown
This is a state performance audit of the Franklin County Regional Housing and Redevelopment Authority, covering October 1, 2010 through September 30, 2012.
“I am pleased to submit this performance audit of the Franklin County Regional Housing and Redevelopment Authority.”
Auditors looked at whether the authority handled purchases of goods and services properly, efficiently, and in line with housing department rules and state law.
“The objectives of our audit were to review and analyze the Authority’s internal controls over its procurement of goods and services and to determine whether its procurement activities were efficient, effective, and in compliance with the Department of Housing and Community Development’s (DHCD’s) procurement guidelines and laws, rules, and regulations applicable to state-aided housing programs.”
Clear purchasing rules help protect public money from waste, misuse, or being spent for the wrong purpose.
“Without such policies, the Commonwealth cannot be sure that the Authority’s funds are being properly maximized, safeguarded against misuse, and expended for their intended purpose.”
If you live in or care about publicly supported housing in Franklin County, this audit is about whether the authority is buying services in a way that protects public dollars and gets fair prices.
“The Authority’s management oversees 71 units of housing for the elderly and 27 units for families.”
The biggest problem was procurement: the authority lacked adequate written purchasing procedures and did not properly bid or contract for IT services.
“The Authority did not follow Chapter 30B guidelines regarding bidding and written contracts.”
The authority had already adopted an updated procurement policy, and auditors said it should keep that policy current, share it with staff, follow it consistently, and use written vendor contracts.
“The Authority should ensure that this newly adopted policy is kept current, communicated to all staff members, and consistently followed.”
The report is significant because even one poorly handled vendor arrangement can weaken confidence that public agencies are getting fair prices and protecting themselves legally.
“As a result, the procurement process lacked integrity and the Authority cannot be certain that it received the best price for these services.”
“Procurement” means how the authority buys goods and services, including getting bids or quotes and using written contracts when required.
“It is necessary that all LHAs have a formal stated policy to control the purchases and contracts for equipment, materials, supplies and services.”
2 figure(s) pending source verification - not shown
What the Auditor checked
- Partially Review and analyze the Authority's internal controls over procurement and determine whether procurement activities were efficient, effective, and compliant with applicable guidelines, laws, rules, and regulations.
What the Auditor found
Why it matters: Without adequate procurement policies, funds may not be maximized, safeguarded against misuse, or spent for their intended purpose.
Standard: DHCD’s Accounting Manual required local housing authorities to have a formal procurement policy. ( Section 16C of DHCD’s Accounting Manual (July 2004) )
1 recommendation
- Keep the newly adopted procurement policy current, communicate it to all staff, follow it consistently, and routinely update the management plan with applicable Authority and DHCD policies and procedures.agency: already implemented
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "The [Authority’s] Board of Commissioners updated the agency’s procurement process during the audit."
Auditor: "We recognize that the Authority has taken steps toward improving the overall operations of the agency and continues to do so."
Why it matters: The Authority could not be certain it received the best price and lacked a mechanism to monitor vendor performance or protect itself from legal issues.
Standard: Chapter 30B of the General Laws required competitive procurement procedures and written contracts for qualifying purchases. ( Chapter 30B of the General Laws; Chapter 30B, Sections 17(a) and 17(b), of the General Laws )
1 recommendation
- Establish written contracts with vendors detailing the scope of service, term, deliverables, and expected compensation.
Agency response & Auditor reply
Agency: "While [the Authority] does not dispute that it did not follow procedures correctly in this instance, we do not believe that this one instance merits the general conclusion that the Authority did not maintain adequate internal controls of the procurement of goods and services during this time period."
Auditor: "Although OSA only identified one instance of noncompliance with the requirement to enter into written contracts with vendors for purchases of $5,000 or more, this instance demonstrates the importance of documented internal control procedures that are available, understood, and fully implemented by the Authority’s staff."