AUDIT REVIEW PROCEDURES A. Any dispute concerning a question of fact arising under an interim or post audit of this AGREEMENT that is not disposed of by AGREEMENT, shall be reviewed by LOCAL AGENCY’S Chief Financial Officer.
B. Not later than thirty (30) calendar days after issuance of the final audit report, CONSULTANT may request a review by LOCAL AGENCY’S Chief Financial Officer of unresolved audit issues. The request for review will be submitted in writing.
C. Neither the pendency of a dispute nor its consideration by LOCAL AGENCY will excuse CONSULTANT from full and timely performance, in accordance with the terms of this AGREEMENT.
D. CONSULTANT and subconsultant AGREEMENTs, including cost proposals and Indirect Cost Rates (ICR), may be subject to audits or reviews such as, but not limited to, an AGREEMENT audit, an incurred cost audit, an ICR Audit, or a CPA ICR audit work paper review. If selected for audit or review, the AGREEMENT, cost proposal and ICR and related work papers, if applicable, will be reviewed to verify compliance with 48 CFR Part 31 and other related laws and regulations. In the instances of a CPA ICR audit work paper review it is CONSULTANT’s responsibility to ensure federal, LOCAL AGENCY, or local government officials are allowed full access to the CPA’s work papers including making copies as necessary. The AGREEMENT, cost proposal, and ICR shall be adjusted by CONSULTANT and approved by LOCAL AGENCY Contract Administrator to conform to the audit or review recommendations. CONSULTANT agrees that individual terms of costs identified in the audit report shall be incorporated into the AGREEMENT by this reference if directed by LOCAL AGENCY at its sole discretion. Refusal by CONSULTANT to incorporate audit or review recommendations, or to ensure that the federal, LOCAL AGENCY or local governments have access to CPA work papers, will be considered a breach of AGREEMENT terms and cause for termination of the AGREEMENT and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs.
E. CONSULTANT’s Cost Proposal may be subject to a CPA ICR Audit Work Paper Review and/or audit by the Independent Office of Audits and Investigations (IOAI). IOAI, at its sole discretion, may review and/or audit and approve the CPA ICR documentation. The Cost Proposal shall be adjusted by the CONSULTANT and approved by the LOCAL AGENCY Contract Administrator to conform to the Work Paper Review recommendations included in the management letter or audit recommendations included in the audit report. Refusal by the CONSULTANT to incorporate the Work Paper Review recommendations included in the management letter or audit recommendations included in the audit report will be considered a breach of the AGREEMENT terms and cause for termination of the AGREEMENT and disallowance of prior reimbursed costs.
1. During IOAI’s review of the ICR audit work papers created by the CONSULTANT’s independent CPA, IOAI will work with the CPA and/or CONSULTANT toward a resolution of issues that arise during the review. Each party agrees to use its best efforts to resolve any audit disputes in a timely manner. If IOAI identifies significant issues during the review and is unable to issue a cognizant approval letter, LOCAL AGENCY will reimburse the CONSULTANT at an accepted ICR until a FAR (Federal Acquisition Regulation) compliant ICR {e.g. 48 CFR Part 31; GAGAS (Generally Accepted Auditing Standards); CAS (Cost Accounting Standards), if applicable; in accordance with procedures and guidelines of the American Association of State Highways and Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Audit Guide; and other applicable procedures and guidelines}is received and approved by IOAI. Accepted rates will be as follows:
a. If the proposed rate is less than one hundred fifty percent (150%) - the accepted rate reimbursed will be ninety percent (90%) of the proposed rate.
b. If the proposed rate is between one hundred fifty percent (150%) and two hundred percent (200%) - the accepted rate will be eighty-five percent (85%) of the proposed rate.
c. If the proposed rate is greater than two hundred percent (200%) - the accepted rate will be seventy-five percent (75%) of the proposed rate.
2. If IOAI is unable to issue a cognizant letter per paragraph E.1. above, IOAI may require CONSULTANT to submit a revised independent CPA-audited ICR and audit report within three (3) months of the effective date of the management letter. IOAI will then have up to six (6) months to review the CONSULTANT’s and/or the independent CPA’s revisions.
3. If the CONSULTANT fails to comply with the provisions of this paragraph E, or if IOAI is still unable to issue a cognizant approval letter after the revised independent CPA audited ICR is submitted, overhead cost reimbursement will be limited to the accepted ICR that was established upon initial rejection of the ICR and set forth in paragraph E.1. above for all rendered services. In this event, this accepted ICR will become the actual and final ICR for reimbursement purposes under this AGREEMENT.
4. CONSULTANT may submit to LOCAL AGENCY final invoice only when all of the following items have occurred: (1) IOAI accepts or adjusts the original or revised independent CPA audited ICR;
Review Procedures a. In consultation with the Illinois SHPO, NRCS shall identify those undertakings with little to no potential to affect historic properties and list those undertakings in Appendix A. Upon the determination by the CRS that a proposed undertaking is included in Appendix A, the NRCS is not required to consult further with the SHPO for that undertaking. A list of undertakings with the potential to affect historic properties comprises Appendix B.
b. The lists of undertakings provided in Appendices A and B may be modified through consultation and written agreement between the NRCS State Conservationist and the SHPO without requiring an amendment to this Illinois Prototype Agreement. The NRCS State Office will maintain the master list and will provide an updated list to all consulting parties with an explanation of the rationale for classifying the practices accordingly.
c. Undertakings identified in Appendix B shall require further review as outlined in Stipulation V.
a. The NRCS shall consult with the SHPO to define the undertaking’s APE, identify and evaluate historic properties that may be affected by the undertaking, assess potential effects, and identify strategies for resolving adverse effects prior to implementing the undertaking.
1) NRCS may provide its proposed APE, identification of historic properties and/or scope of identification efforts, and assessment of effects in a single transmittal to the SHPO, provided this documentation meets the substantive standards in 36 CFR Part 800.4-5 and 800.11.
2) The NRCS shall attempt to avoid adverse effects to historic properties whenever possible; where historic properties are located in the APE, NRCS shall describe how it proposes to modify, buffer, or move the undertaking to avoid adverse effects to historic properties.
3) Where the NRCS proposes a finding of "no historic properties affected" or "no adverse effect" to historic properties, the SHPO shall have 30 calendar days from receipt of this documented description and information to review it and provide comments. The NRCS shall take into account all timely comments.
i. If the SHPO, or another consulting party, disagrees with NRCS' findings and/or determination, it shall notify the NRCS within the thirty (30) calendar daytime period. The NRCS shall consult with the SHPO or other consulting party to attempt to resolve the disagreement. If the disagreement cannot be resolved through this consultation, NRCS shall follow the dispute resolution process in Stipulation VIII below.
ii. If the SHPO does not respond to the NRCS within the thirty (30) calendar day period and/or the NRCS receives no objections from other consulting parties, or if the SHPO concurs with the NRCS' determination and proposed actions to avoid adverse effects, the NRCS shall document the concurrence/lack of response within the review time noted above and may move forward with the undertaking.
4) Where a proposed undertaking may adversely affect historic properties, NRCS shall describe proposed measures to minimize or mitigate the adverse effects, and follow the process in 36 CFR Part 800.6, including consultation with other consulting patties and notification to the ACHP, to develop a Memorandum of Agreement to resolve the adverse effects. Should the proposed undertaking have the potential to adversely affect a known NHL, the NRCS shall, to the maximum extent possible, undertake such planning and actions that may be necessary to minimize harm to the NHL in accordance with 54 U.S.C. § 306107 of the NHPA and 36 CFR Part 800.6 and 800.10, including consultation with the ACHP and respective National Park Service, Regional National Historic Landmark Program Coordinator, to develop a Memorandum of Agreement.
d. NRCS will conduct archaeological surveys and will submit reports and other documentation to SHPO for review and comment. When no archaeological sites have been located by the archaeological survey, NRCS may proceed with the proposed undertaking. Reports for negative surveys must be submitted to SHPO on a quarterly basis. All positive and negative reports submitted to SHPO will be sent digitally for submission to the Inventory of Illinois Archaeological Sites (IAS) data file maintained by staff at the Illinois State Museum (ISM) housed under the Illinois Department of Natural Resources (IDNR). The NRCS further agrees that access to specific site location data will be restricted to the CRS, the NRCS field personnel installing conservation practices adjacent to the cultural resource, and the landowner. Specific site location information for individual projects will be maintained in a secure cultural resources file kept in the field offices and will not be available to the public.
e. Curation: NRCS personnel will not collect artifactual material during routine field inspections. However, if a professional survey, evaluation testing, or mitigation is required, NRCS shall ensure that all materials and records resulting from cultural resources surveys or data recovery activities on federal or state property are curated by the Illinois State Museum. The NRCS shall ensure that all records resulting from cultural resource surveys or data recovery activities on private property are curated by the Illinois State Museum or an equivalent curation facility in accordance with 36 CFR Part 79. Subject to the landowner's permission, all objects resulting from cultural resources surveys or data recovery activities are maintained by the Illinois State Museum or equivalent research institution until their analysis is complete and they are returned to their owner(s). Although landowners will be encouraged to donate artifactual material, it is understood that objects collected on private land remain the property of the landowner(s) unless the landowner(s) donates the material to the Illinois State Museum or equivalent research institution. This excludes burial goods, as stipulated by ▇▇▇▇▇▇.
Procurement Procedures 11.1 The Recipient must secure the best value for money and shall act in a fair, open and non-discriminatory manner in all purchases of goods and services.
Classification Review Grand Valley State University and APSS shall jointly determine the review assessment survey instrument to be used at Grand Valley State University. The parties shall maintain a Joint Review Committee, composed of three members appointed by the Human Resources Office and three members appointed by the Alliance. Bargaining unit members questioning the assigned classification of their position may do so by using the following procedure:
A. Meet with the Employment Manager in the Human Resources Office to discuss the review process, changes in their job responsibilities, duties and any other process questions they may have.
B. PSS member will fill out the assessment survey and email to the Employment Manager along with any other documentation that supports the request. The survey instrument will be jointly administered/reviewed by the Assessment Team (consisting of the Employment Manager and an Alliance member of the Joint Review Committee). A meeting with the PSS is scheduled for a verbal review of the documentation and to answer any questions the Assessment Team may have. The supervisor or appointing officer is encouraged to attend. If the Assessment Team believes a job site visit is warranted as a result of the survey information, they will schedule a time for a joint visit.
C. The completed survey instrument shall be coded. The survey results, as determined by the Assessment Team, shall be shared with the survey participant.
D. After receiving the survey results, the survey participant, if they so choose shall have the opportunity to meet with the Joint Review Committee for additional input and appeal. Any additional information shall be reviewed by the Committee, and where the Committee feels it is necessary, the survey will be recoded, in a manner mutually agreeable.
E. The Joint Review Committee shall then deliberate as to the merit of the upgrade requested by the participant. If the Committee is not able to reach a consensus, the University will decide on the classification. The Alliance may appeal that decision through the arbitration procedure of the collective bargaining agreement. Professional Support Staff members may engage in the review process no more than once per year. Supervisors questioning the assigned classification of a staff member’s position shall provide supporting rationale, complete an assessment survey instrument and discuss with Manager of Employment. The Manager of Employment shall notify an Alliance Representative that a Supervisor is reviewing a staff member’s classification. The review and outcome shall be completed within 45 working days unless the Alliance Representative and Manager of Employment mutually agreed to an extension. The Alliance will be provided with the scored instrument and any supporting rationale.
Claims and Review Procedures 6.1 For all claims other than Disability benefits: