Introduction/Background
Contractor |
DOE Office |
|
|
Date of last assessment: October 2000
The major responsibilities of the department are:
General ledger maintenance and reconciliation and journal entry operations
Work Order maintenance,
FIS/MARS, other DOE and Stanford University reporting,
Cost reporting and cost data files,
Accounts payable,
Accounts receivable and collections and bank deposit operations and reconciliation,
Payroll,
Labor database maintenance,
Property accounting,
Bank operations,
Contract labor data maintenance and payments,
Stores accounting and stores file maintenance,
Requisition
and purchase order commitment maintenance; Shop rate and vehicle charge-out
maintenance
Travel accounting.
Identification of Self-Assessment Report Staff
Introduction:
For
Fiscal Year 2001, the major events of the year for SLAC Accounting were
participation in an Administrative Peer Review, and the responses to the
turnover in Travel reimbursement office.
Customer
service surveys have shown that the Laboratory thinks very highly of our
Payroll, Accounts Payable, and the Cost Accounting staff.
Based
on the results of our surveys, and due to substantial turnover in
the Travel Reimbursement Office, we hired a new manager. In addition, we
merged the Accounts Payable and Travel Reimbursement functions.
We were able to improve customer service with a great deal of effort
spent on training. We also created many new web documents to improve Laboratory
knowledge of documentation requirements, and DOE and Federal travel regulations.
We
have also created new online forms: including online domestic and foreign travel
authorizations forms. For domestic travel, users are now able to use the online
routing approvals, eliminating paper completely.
They can also prepare their expense report online, saving a great deal of
time. We have received excellent responses to these efforts.
Commitment
tracking has been greatly improved, with help from our programming staff. This
provided better information at yearend to financial planners as well as
accountants.
Two-thirds
of our three-person payroll staff is new this year, and training has produced
results.
Discussion of Individual Performance Objectives
Performance
Objective #1: Effective and Efficient Cash
Management
Performance Measure 1.1.a: Reduce
the amount of delinquent accounts receivable 90, 91-180, and over 180 days old.
Findings:
|
2000 |
2001 |
Total receivables |
$1,636,242 |
$780,031 |
Delinquent receivables |
$39,079 |
$70,007 |
Domestic del. Over 90 days |
$2,284 |
$0 |
Foreign del. Over 180 days |
$0 |
$0 |
Delinquent over 180 days |
$0 |
$0 |
Over 90 as a percent of total |
0.00% |
$0 |
SLAC has performed in an outstanding
manner in receivables. No
receivables are delinquent more than 180 days, The value of receivables more
than 90 days old is less than 1% of the value of total receivables, and all
eligible non-Federal receivables more than 180 days old have been referred to
the Treasury.
Performance Measure 1.2a: Revenues/collections
are promptly collected, recorded and properly classified (i.e., sent to Treasury
or deposited into the Payments Cleared Financing Arrangement Account).
Findings:
SLACs performance was outstanding. 100% of collections were promptly
and properly recorded and classified. All
collections are reviewed before final monthend posting, and a comparison is made
between the daily mail posting of checks received and the data inputted into
PeopleSoft Accounts Receivable. We
prepare our deposits to coincide with Loomis Fargo Armed Delivery services to
make sure that collections are promptly deposited.
Performance
Objective #
3.
Effective Internal Controls and
Audit Findings Follow-up.
Performance Measure 3.1.a :
Financial findings are prioritized to achieve timely resolution within
the metric guidelines.
Stanford University Audit Group Reviews
Review
of SLAC Purchase Cards (November 10, 2000)
The Internal Audit Group reviewed the internal controls implemented by SLAC for the purchase of good and services with the SLAC Purchase Card.
Summarized
herewith are the recommendations and corrective actions contained within the
report.
1.
Immediately follow-up on obtaining all refunds due from the bank.
Recommendation:
1. The Accounting Office should immediately follow-up on obtaining the refunds for the period January through March 2000.
2.
The Accounting Officer together with the Purchasing Officer and the Card
Administrator should review pertinent sections, including financial implication,
in the GSA SmartPay Master Contract that would be applicable to SLAC, and
develop a system to monitor/account for those transactions (refunds).
Corrective Action:
2.
Immediately consider electronically remitting payments to the bank
which will increase Productivity Refunds and further reduce the costs of
operating the Purchase Card program.
Recommendation:
The Accounting Officer should immediately consider electronically remitting
payments to the bank.
Corrective
Action: The
Accounting Officer stated that the September 27, 2000 invoices were received on
October 5, 2000 and payment was made via wire transfer the next day.
In future, they will coordinate with Bank of America to process monthly
payments electronically based on the downloaded monthly transaction file. SLAC management does not think daily electronic payments are
cost-effective at this time when all the costs, such as staffing costs for file
manipulation, coordination and reconciliation, and bank wire charges, are
factored in.
3.
Immediately close the account owned by the identified terminated
employee.
Recommendation: The Card Administrator should immediately close the account owned by
the identified terminated employee.
Corrective
Action: The Purchase Card account
of the identified terminated employee was immediately.
The Purchase Card Administrator is now notified of all
terminations. Accounts belonging to
terminating employees are deactivated as soon as the last day of employment has
been communicated via Human Resources.
4.
Immediately follow up on a credit (refund) for the sales tax payment.
Recommendation: The Purchasing Officer and Card Administrator should immediately contact the vendor and follow up on a credit (refund) for the sales tax payment.
Corrective
Action: The cardholder did follow-up
with the vendor and the sales tax was refunded on the statement for period
ending August 27, 2000. It is the
responsibility of the cardholders and the approving officials to resolve issues
of sales tax refunds. The
Purchasing Office and Card Administrator provide assistance when necessary.
5. Enforce Section 3.1 and 18.2 of the Purchase Card manual.
Recommendations: The Purchasing Officer and Card Administrator should enforce Section
3.1 and 18.2 of the Purchase Card manual.
Corrective Action: The Card Administrator will remind cardholders and approving officials the procedures to follow when the approving officials is not available to approve the monthly statement. The annual audit conducted under the supervision of the Purchasing Officer, will check for compliance with Approving Officials sign off requirement.
The Accounting Officer and the Card Administrator have established a process to monitor the cardholders submittal of monthly statements and will take appropriate actions. At the end of October 2000, the privileges of five cardholders were suspended because of missing statements.
Completed on
10/04/00, 12/06/00, and 5/03/01 via reminder email to all cardholders.
6.
Review and appropriately revise the Purchase Log form.
Recommendations:
The Card Administrator and the Purchasing Officer should consider reviewing and appropriately revising the Purchase Log form to conform to the actual intent of SLAC management.
Corrective Action:
Pending
completion.
7.
Enforce the current requirement on receipts.
Recommendations:
The Purchasing Officer and the Card Administrator should
enforce the current requirement on receipts stipulated in Section 18.3 of the
manual.
Corrective Action: Cardholders will be reminded of the requirement in Section 18.3. Criteria for the annual audit of transactions does include checking for compliance with the requirement.
Completed on
12/06/00. A follow-up reminder will
be sent with the October 2001 closing notice to cardholders.
No financial
findings.
SLAC Audit
of Allowable Cost for FY2000 (April 12, 2001)
The objective
of this audit were to review the system of internal controls and examine
transactions to determine whether costs incurred during the period October 1,
1999, through September 30, 2000 were allowable under the terms of contract
number DE-AC03-76SFO0515, Modification M339.
1. Immediately determine the extent of erroneous
vendor payments by reviewing prior payments made and obtain refunds from the
vendor.
Recommendation: The Accounting Officer and the Purchasing Officer should review prior
payments made to the vendor to determine the extent of earlier errors, if any.
Based on the results of the review, they should obtain refunds from the
vendor, if appropriate.
Corrective Action: After review of prior payments, a letter was sent to the vendor notifying the vendor of the over charges. The over charge amount was deducted from the vendors next invoice.
Completed on
April 13, 2001
DOE IG
Fiscal 2000 Financial Statement Audit (7/2000, 10/2000, &11/2000)
No findings.
No subsequent reports was issued.
Agreed
Upon Procedures Performed at SLAC for FY2000 in Accordance with OMB Circular
A-133
No findings.
|
||
Audit |
Target Time |
Completion
Date |
Review of SLAC
Purchase Cards (November 10, 2000) |
|
|
1.
Immediately follow-up on obtaining all refunds due from the bank |
|
9/29/2000 |
2. Immediately consider electronically remitting payments to the bank which will increase Productivity Refunds and further reduce the costs of operating the Purchase Card program. |
|
10/5/2000 |
3. Immediately close the account owned by the identified terminated employee. |
|
11/2000 |
4. Immediately follow up on a credit
(refund) for the sales tax payment. |
|
8/27/2000 |
5.
Enforce Section 3.1 and
18.2 of the Purchase Card manual. |
|
10/4&12/06/00
&5/3/01 |
6. Review and appropriately revise the Purchase Log form. |
|
Pending Completion |
7. Enforce the current requirement on receipts. |
|
12/6/00 &10/01 |
SLAC
Audit of Allowable Cost for FY2000 (April 12, 2001) |
|
|
1. Immediately determine the extent of erroneous vendor payments by
reviewing prior payments made and obtain refunds from the vendor. |
|
4/13/2001 |
DOE
IG Fiscal 2000 Financial Statement Audit (7/2000, 10/2000, &11/2000) |
|
|
1. DOE IG Fiscal 2000 Financial Statement Audit (7/2000, 10/2000,
&11/2000) |
|
No finding. |
Agreed
Upon Procedures Performed at SLAC for FY2000 in Accordance with OMB
Circular A-133 |
|
|
1. FY2000 Functional Support Cost Report Audit (12/13/2000) |
|
No finding. |
Performance
Measure 3.1.b: Adequate internal controls are in place to ensure that
travel costs reported are accurate, complete, and have supporting documentation.
Findings:
SLACs performance on Measure 3.1.b was outstanding.
All our travel costs, without exception are accurate and satisfy DOE
requirements. Each and every travel expense report reimbursed is supported by
adequate documentation. We know this because there is 100% review of expense
reports submitted by travelers to the Travel Reimbursement Office.
As required by
DOE, travel costs reported to DOE excluded travel performed under work-for-other
agreements, travel of subcontractors, travel of users to participate in
experiments at DOE user facilities, relocation costs or costs of travel
management. Travel costs reported
are complete, accurate, and are identified through general ledger codes.
Supporting documentation was provided promptly to DOE Oakland whenever
requested.
GOAL#2:
Effectiveness and Efficiency
Performance
Measures 1.1.a:
DOE required accounting
reports are provided by the due date and meet content requirements.
Findings:
SLAC has consistently delivered the reports on time without any need to
change the information. Resubmits and extensions of time were not required. Our
performance on this measure has been excellent.
Performance
Measures 1.2.a: FY
2000 audited financial statements are prepared in accordance with DOE requirements.
Findings:
SLACs financial statements for FY2000 were complete and accurate and
supported by documentation. We continued our practice instituted last year of
reviewing our PeopleSoft General Ledger Accounts and MARS Balance Sheet Accounts
during July and August to be better prepared for yearend close and financial
statement analysis. We have improved on the number and quality of reports in our
Analytical Reporting Facility to get better information for review, and get it
faster. SLACs performance on this measure was excellent.
Performance
Objective #2: Construction projects are closed and capitalized.
Performance
Measures 2.1.a:
Construction projects are closed upon beneficial occupancy and
capitalized in accordance with DOE requirements.
Findings:
A plan was developed for the closing and capitalizing of all projects. SLAC also
improved on the process by shortening the time it takes to prepare the Work In
Process documentation and making the data available on the Web in addition to
spreadsheets. Our performance was outstanding.
Performance
Objective #3.0: Effective and efficient indirect cost management
Performance
Measure 3.1.a: Using 1997 as a baseline, track and
trend FY 1998 through FY 2001 indirect costs.
Demonstrate that the costs are efficiently managed.
Process used to meet objectives/measures:
SLAC ensures efficient management of its indirect costs by treating them
as direct cost. Budgets for indirect functions are individually developed and
justified and go through the same rigorous review and approval process as direct
programmatic function budgets.
Findings: The Indirect Rate chart illustrates that SLACs operating indirect costs as a percent of the direct operating costs have steadily declined from the FY1996 benchmark of 35.3% to 26.2% in FY2001. Although the actual dollars expended for operating indirect support in FY2001 are higher than the dollars expended in FY1996, the percentage decline in indirect costs as a percentage of operating costs demonstrates that SLAC has been able to effectively control its operating indirect costs such that they have not grown at the same rate as the operating direct costs.
Indirect Rate
(Operating Indirect Cost as a Percent of Operating Direct Costs)
|
96 |
97 |
98 |
99 |
00 |
01 |
Rate |
35.3% |
34.5% |
31.0% |
31.0% |
29.7% |
26.2% |
Indirects |
$31,209 |
$31,428 |
$31,129 |
$34,229 |
$34,193 |
$32,823 |
Directs |
$88,393 |
$91,014 |
$100,551 |
$110,481 |
$115,244 |
$125,336 |
Total |
$119,602 |
$122,442 |
$131,680 |
$144,710 |
$149,437 |
$158,159 |
Discussion: The
Departments charged with carrying out SLACs indirect functions must compete
for funding along with the research programs and must justify their requests
based on the services to be provided. The
budget is allocated based on an assessment of Laboratory mission priorities and
goals. All functional elements of
the Laboratory are held accountable for their assigned budget.
The Laboratorys indirect rate is derived from the indirect budgets
rather than the budgets being derived from the indirect rate.
Over the last several years, as the direct programs have grown, the
indirect functions at SLAC have been able to control their growth at a rate
lower than that of the direct programs. However,
if, in the future, the direct programs shrink, the indirect programs will
probably shrink at a slower rate resulting in an increase in the indirect rate.
Performance Measure 3.1.b
Policies, data
and reports consistent with Cost Accounting Standards (CAS) compliance and DOE
requirements; financial practices are consistent with approved CAS Disclosure
Statement.
Process used to meet objectives/measures:
SLAC partnered with DOE Oakland in preparation of its first CAS
Disclosure statement. Advice and assistance were sought by SLAC from DOE/Oak from
the initiation of the effort through completion.
A draft document was sent to DOE Oakland for comments and discussion.
Issues were resolved with DOE prior to SLACs submittal of the final
CAS Disclosure Statement.
Findings: SLACs financial management practices and processes are fully compliant with CAS and DOE requirements. SLAC demonstrates an excellent, reliable and systematic method of analyzing and assimilating data consistent with the approved Disclosure Statement. Therefore, SLACs performance rating is outstanding.
Performance Measures 3.1.c:
SLAC prepares and submits the Functional Support Cost Report (FSC) in
accordance with the DOE requirements.
Process used to meet objectives/measures:
SLAC partnered with DOE Oakland to identify the appropriate
categorization of cost for the FSC Report was prepared following the applicable
guidelines and submission requirements.
For Questions or comments, Please contact Ziba Mahdavi, Last Updated 10/24/00